Search

Background: Although the Canadian Consensus Guidelines for Primary Care of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities recommends conducting periodic health checks in primary care, uptake is lacking. This study seeks to understand factors influencing the conduct of periodic health checks and identify what needs to change to increase them. Method: Qualitative data from five stakeholder groups (adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, primary care providers, administrative staff, family, disability support workers) was guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and 'what needs to change' to support periodic health checks. Results: Stakeholders (n = 41) voiced multiple barriers. A total of 31 common and 2 unique themes were identified plus 33 items 'needing to change'. Conclusion: Despite barriers, stakeholders saw merit in periodic health checks as a preventative and equitable healthcare offering for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Results will inform future intervention development steps.

Background: Interprofessional primary care teams have been introduced across Canada to improve access (e.g., a regular primary care provider, timely access to care when needed) to and quality of primary care. However, the quality and speed of team implementation has not kept pace with increasing access issues. The aim of this research was to use an implementation framework to categorize and describe barriers and enablers to team implementation in primary care. Methods: A narrative review that prioritized systematic reviews and evidence syntheses was conducted. A search using pre-defined terms was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, and potentially relevant grey literature was identified through ad hoc Google searches and hand searching of health organization websites. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to categorize barriers and enablers into five domains: (1) Features of Team Implementation; (2) Government, Health Authorities and Health Organizations; (3) Characteristics of the Team; (4) Characteristics of Team Members; and (5) Process of Implementation. Results: Data were extracted from 19 of 435 articles that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most barriers and enablers were categorized into two domains of the CFIR: Characteristics of the Team and Government, Health Authorities, and Health Organizations. Key themes identified within the Characteristics of the Team domain were team-leadership, including designating a manager responsible for day-to-day activities and facilitating collaboration; clear governance structures, and technology supports and tools that facilitate information sharing and communication. Key themes within the Government, Health Authorities, and Health Organizations domain were professional remuneration plans, regulatory policy, and interprofessional education. Other key themes identified in the Features of Team Implementation included the importance of good data and research on the status of teams, as well as sufficient and stable funding models. Positive perspectives, flexibility, and feeling supported were identified in the Characteristics of Team Members domain. Within the Process of Implementation domain, shared leadership and human resources planning were discussed. Conclusions: Barriers and enablers to implementing interprofessional primary care teams using the CFIR were identified, which enables stakeholders and teams to tailor implementation of teams at the local level to impact the accessibility and quality of primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]