Search

Team-based care is considered central to achieving value in primary care, yet results of large-scale primary care transformation initiatives have been mixed. We explore how underlying change processes influence the effectiveness of transition to team-based care. We studied 12 academically affiliated primary care practices participating in a learning collaborative, using longitudinal staff survey data to measure progress toward team-based care and qualitative interviews with practice staff to understand practice transformation. Transformation efforts focused on team formation and capacity building for quality improvement. Using thematic analysis, we explored types of change processes undertaken and the relationship between change processes and effective team-based care. We identified three prototypical approaches to change: pursuing functional and cultural change processes, functional only, and cultural only. Practice sites prioritizing both change processes formed the most effective teams: simultaneous functional and cultural change spurred a mutually reinforcing virtuous cycle. We describe implications for research, practice, and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The need to expand and better engage patients in primary care improvement persists. Purpose: Recognizing a continuum of forms of engagement, this study focused on identifying lessons for optimizing patient partnerships, wherein engagement is characterized by shared decision-making and practice improvement codesign. Methodology: Twenty-three semistructured interviews with providers and patients involved in improvement efforts in seven U.S. primary care practices in the Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC). The AIC aimed to implement primary care improvement, emphasizing patient engagement in the process. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Sites varied in their achievement of patient partnerships, encountering material, technical, and sociocultural obstacles. Time was a challenge for all sites, as was engaging a diversity of patients. Technical training on improvement processes and shared learning "on the job" were important. External, organizational, and individual-level resources helped overcome sociocultural challenges: The AIC drove provider buy-in, a team-based improvement approach helped shift relationships from providers and recipients toward teammates, and individual qualities and behaviors that flattened hierarchies and strengthened interpersonal relationships further enhanced "teamness." A key factor influencing progress toward transformative partnerships was a strong shared learning journey, characterized by frequent interactions, proximity to improvement decision-making, and learning together from the "lived experience" of practice improvement. Teams came to value not only patients' knowledge but also changes wrought by working collaboratively over time. Conclusion: Establishing practice improvement partnerships remains challenging, but partnering with patients on improvement journeys offers distinctive gains for high-quality patient-centered care. Practice Implications: Engaging diverse patient partners requires significant disruption to organizational norms and routines, and the trend toward team-based primary care offers a fertile context for patient partnerships. Material, technical, and sociocultural resources should be evaluated not only for whether they overcome specific challenges but also for how they enhance the shared learning journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-based approaches to healthcare improvement are receiving increasing attention. Such approaches could offer an infrastructure for efficient knowledge-sharing and a potent means of influencing behaviours, but their potential is yet to be optimised. After briefly reviewing challenges to community-based approaches, we describe in detail the clinical community model. Through exploring clinical communities in practice, we seek to identify practical lessons for optimising this community-based approach to healthcare improvement. Through comparative case studies based on secondary analysis, we examine two contrasting examples of clinical communities in practice – the USA-based Michigan Keystone ICU programme, and the UK-based Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project. We focus on three main issues. First, both cases were successful in mobilising diverse communities : favourable starting conditions, core teams with personal credibility, reputable institutional backing and embeddedness in wider networks were important. Second, top-down input to organise regular meetings, minimise conflict and empower those at risk of marginalisation helped establish a strong sense of community and reciprocal ties , while intervention components and measures common to the whole community strengthened peer-norming effects. Third, to drive implementation , technical expertise and responsiveness from the core team were important, but so too were ‘hard tactics’ (e.g. strict limits on local customisation); these were more easily deployed where the intervention was standardised across the community and a strong evidence-base existed. Contrary to the idea of self-organising communities, our cases make clear that vertical and horizontal forces depend on each other synergistically for their effectiveness. We offer practical lessons for establishing an effective balance of horizontal and vertical influences, and for identifying the types of quality problems most amenable to community-based improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Access to safe surgical care represents a critical gap in healthcare delivery and development in many low- and middle-income countries, including Ethiopia. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives at hospital level may contribute to closing this gap. Many such quality improvement initiatives are carried out through international health partnerships. Better understanding of how to optimise quality improvement in low-income settings is needed, including through partnership-based approaches. Drawing on a process evaluation of an intervention to improve surgical services in an Ethiopian hospital, this paper offers lessons to help meet this need.Methods: We conducted a qualitative process evaluation of a quality improvement project which aimed to improve access to surgical services in an Ethiopian referral hospital through better management. Data was collected longitudinally and included: 66 in-depth interviews with surgical staff and project team members; observation (135 h) in the surgery department and of project meetings; project-related documentation. Thematic analysis, guided by theoretical constructs, focused on identifying obstacles to implementation.Results: The project largely failed to achieve its goals. Key barriers related to project design, partnership working and the implementation context, and included: confusion over project objectives and project and partner roles and responsibilities; logistical challenges concerning overseas visits; difficulties in communication; gaps between the time and authority team members had and that needed to implement and engage other staff; limited strategies for addressing adaptive-as opposed to technical-challenges; effects of hierarchy and resource scarcity on QI efforts. While many of the obstacles identified are common to diverse settings, our findings highlight ways in which some features of low-income country contexts amplify these common challenges.Conclusion: We identify lessons for optimising the design and planning of quality improvement interventions within such challenging healthcare contexts, with specific reference to international partnership-based approaches. These include: the need for a funded lead-in phase to clarify and agree goals, roles, mutual expectations and communication strategies; explicitly incorporating adaptive, as well as technical, solutions; transparent management of resources and opportunities; leadership which takes account of both formal and informal power structures; and articulating links between project goals and wider organisational interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Patient and public involvement in healthcare planning, service development and health-related research has received significant attention. However, evidence about the role of patient involvement in quality improvement work is more limited. We aimed to characterize patient involvement in three improvement projects and to identify strengths and weaknesses of contrasting approaches. Methods Three case study quality improvement projects were purposively sampled from a broader programme. We used an ethnographic approach involving 126 in-depth interviews, 12 weeks of non-participant observations and documentary analysis. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results The three projects differed in the ways they involved patients in their quality improvement work, including their rationales for including patients. We characterized three very different models of patient involvement, which were each influenced by project context. Patients played distinctive roles across the three projects, acting in some cases as intermediaries between the wider patient community and clinicians, and sometimes undertaking persuasive work to convince clinicians of the need for change. We identified specific strategies that can be used to help ensure that patient involvement works most effectively and that the enthusiasm of patients to make a difference is not dissipated. Conclusion Patient involvement in quality improvement work needs careful management to realize its full potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding how and why programs work-not simply whether they work-is crucial. Good theory is indispensable to advancing the science of improvement. We argue for the usefulness of ex post theorization of programs. We propose an approach, located within the broad family of theory-oriented methods, for developing ex post theories of interventional programs. We use this approach to develop an ex post theory of the Michigan Intensive Care Unit (ICU) project, which attracted international attention by successfully reducing rates of central venous catheter bloodstream infections (CVC-BSIs). The procedure used to develop the ex post theory was (1) identify program leaders' initial theory of change and learning from running the program; (2) enhance this with new information in the form of theoretical contributions from social scientists; (3) synthesize prior and new information to produce an updated theory. The Michigan project achieved its effects by (1) generating isomorphic pressures for ICUs to join the program and conform to its requirements; (2) creating a densely networked community with strong horizontal links that exerted normative pressures on members; (3) reframing CVC-BSIs as a social problem and addressing it through a professional movement combining 'grassroots' features with a vertically integrating program structure; (4) using several interventions that functioned in different ways to shape a culture of commitment to doing better in practice; (5) harnessing data on infection rates as a disciplinary force; and (6) using 'hard edges.' Updating program theory in the light of experience from program implementation is essential to improving programs' generalizability and transferability, although it is not a substitute for concurrent evaluative fieldwork. Future iterations of programs based on the Michigan project, and improvement science more generally, may benefit from the updated theory present here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]