Search

Critically reflecting on researcher–community partnerships is a key component in implementing chronic condition interventions in Indigenous communities. This paper draws on the results and learnings from a process evaluation that measures how well two research–community partnerships have followed the He Pikinga Waiora (HPW) Implementation Framework while co-designing chronic condition interventions in primary care. The HPW framework is centred on Indigenous self-determination and knowledge surrounded by community engagement, cultural centredness, systems thinking and integrated knowledge translation. The evaluation included in-depth interviews and online surveys with 10 team members. The findings demonstrate that the HPW framework was followed well, with strengths particularly in community engagement and relationship building. Areas for improvement included systems thinking and integrated knowledge translation to support sustainability of the interventions. The need for partnerships to use process evaluation results to support critical reflection is asserted, which helps build strong trust and synergy, power sharing and effective and sustainable implementation practices. It is concluded that the HPW framework is well suited to evaluating implementation of health interventions in primary care as it assists in the facilitation of better collaboration between researchers and Indigenous communities, and encourages the implementation team to reflect on power and privilege. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. In 2009, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners commissioned the development of a framework to facilitate quality-improvement activity in primary care settings. This paper outlines the development of the framework, which integrates concepts of quality with the reality of practice-based clinical care, and discusses its value for primary care quality improvement. Method. Framework development involved: (1) literature review of theoretical approaches to healthcare quality; (2) field work utilising a mixed methods approach to obtain empirical data; and (3) model design. Results. Primary care practitioners are juggling competing priorities. Models and tools that promote quality-related activity at practice level need to take into account, and incorporate by design, day-to-day clinical and practice functions. Conclusions. The quality framework identifies the components of primary care practice and locates this model within the concepts and activities necessary for quality improvement. It may be used by primary care organisations and practices to facilitate focussed quality-improvement activity and self-directed process review. The framework was developed for, and within a New Zealand primary care setting, and is applicable internationally and within other healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]