Search

Publicly insured children needing referral to mental health (MH) services often do not access or receive services. The objective of this study was to identify gaps in communication and coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and MH providers during the MH referral and care process for publicly insured children. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 PCPs and staff from a federally qualified health center (FQHC) and 6 MH providers and staff from two local MH clinics. Interview participants identified multiple gaps in communication throughout the care process and different phases as priorities for improvement. PCPs described primary care-MH communication challenges during early phases, while MH providers described coordination challenges in transferring patients back to primary care for ongoing mental health management. Strategies are needed to improve primary care-specialty MH communication and coordination throughout all phases of the referral and care process, particularly at initial referral and transfer back to primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Polypharmacy and inappropriate drug use is associated with negative health outcomes among older people. Various interventions for improving drug treatment have been evaluated, but the majority of studies are limited by the use of surrogate outcomes or suboptimal design. Thus, the potential for clinically significant improvements from different interventions is still unclear. The main objective of this study is therefore to evaluate the effect upon patient-relevant endpoints of a cooperation between geriatricians and general practitioners on complex drug regimens in home-dwelling elderly people.Methods: This is a cluster randomised, single-blind, controlled trial where general practitioners are invited to participate with patients from their lists. The patients must be 70 years or older, use at least seven different medications and have their medications administered by the home nursing service. We plan to recruit 200 patients, with randomisation at physician level. The intervention consists of three main parts: (1) clinical geriatric assessment of the patient, combined with a thorough review of their medications; (2) a meeting between the geriatrician and general practitioner, where the two physicians combine their competence and knowledge and discuss the drug list systematically; (3) clinical follow-up, depending on the medication changes that have been done. The study period is 24 weeks, and the patients are assessed at baseline, 16 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life according to the 15D instrument. Secondary outcome measures include physical and cognitive functioning, medication appropriateness, falls, carer burden, use of health services (hospital or nursing home admissions, use of home nursing services) and mortality.Discussion: Our choice of patient-relevant outcome measures will hopefully provide new knowledge on the potential for clinical improvements after performing comprehensive medication reviews in home-dwelling elderly people receiving polypharmacy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02379455 . Registered on 27 February 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings.Objectives: This study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions.Methods: Qualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis.Results: Most participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation.Conclusion: IPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members' awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare professionals perform knowledge-intensive work in very specialized disciplines. Across the professional divide, collaboration becomes increasingly difficult. For effective teamwork and collaboration to occur, it is considered necessary for individuals to believe in their ability to draw on their expertise and provide what others need to perform their job well. To date, however, no instruments exist to measure such a construct.Methods: A two-study design is used to test the psychometric properties, factor structure and incremental validity of a five-item questionnaire measuring informational role self-efficacy.Results: Based on parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis, Study 1 shows a robust and reliable one-dimensional construct. Study 2 cross-validates this factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis. Study 2 also shows that informational role self-efficacy predicts proactive teamwork behaviors over and above goal similarity, interdependence, coordination and intra-team trust.Conclusions: The instrument can be used in research to assess an individual's capability beliefs in communicating his/her informational characteristics that are pertinent to the task performance of others. The construct is also shown to have value in team-building exercises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.Results: Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a 'study team', bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals' willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.Conclusions: This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite patients' increasing use of urgent care centers (UCC), little is known about how urgent care clinicians communicate with the emergency department (ED).Objectives: To assess ED clinicians' perceptions of the quality and consistency of communication when patients are referred from UCCs to EDs.Methods: Emergency medicine department chairs distributed a brief, electronic survey to a statewide sample of ED clinicians via e-mail. The survey included multiple-choice and free-text questions focused on types of communication desired and received from UCCs, types of test results available on transfer, and suggestions for improvement.Results: Of 199 ED clinicians, 102 (51.3%) responded. More than four out of five respondents "somewhat" or "strongly agreed" that each of the following would be helpful: a telephone call, the reason for referral, specific concern, a copy of the chart, and UCC contact information. However, ED clinicians reported not consistently receiving these: only a fifth (21.6%) of clinicians reported receiving the specific concern for their last 5 patients transferred from a UCC, and 34.3% recalled receiving a copy of the chart. Overall, 54.9% reported receiving laboratory test results "often or almost always," 49.0% electrocardiograms, and 44.1% imaging reports. Qualitative analysis revealed several themes: incomplete data when patients are referred; barriers to discussion between ED and urgent care clinicians; and possible solutions to improve communication.Conclusions: Our findings highlight variation in communication from UCCs to EDs, indicating a need to improve communication standards and practices. We identify several potential ways to improve this clinical information hand-off. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health services research is expected to involve service users as active partners in the research process, but few examples report how this has been achieved in practice in trials. We implemented a model to involve service users in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in pre-hospital emergency care. We used the generic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from our Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) as the basis for creating a model to fit the context and population of the SAFER 2 trial.Methods: In our model, we planned to involve service users at all stages in the trial through decision-making forums at 3 levels: 1) strategic; 2) site (e.g. Wales; London; East Midlands); 3) local. We linked with charities and community groups to recruit people with experience of our study population. We collected notes of meetings alongside other documentary evidence such as attendance records and study documentation to track how we implemented our model.Results: We involved service users at strategic, site and local level. We also added additional strategic level forums (Task and Finish Groups and Writing Days) where we included service users. Service user involvement varied in frequency and type across meetings, research stages and locations but stabilised and increased as the trial progressed.Conclusion: Involving service users in the SAFER 2 trial showed how it is feasible and achievable for patients, carers and potential patients sharing the demographic characteristics of our study population to collaborate in a multi-centre trial at the level which suited their health, location, skills and expertise. A standard model of involvement can be tailored by adopting a flexible approach to take account of the context and complexities of a multi-site trial.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756. Registered: 13 March 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Competing health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care.Methods/design: A two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data.Discussion: An individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective physician-nurse collaboration is an important, but incompletely understood determinant of patient and nurse satisfaction, and patient safety. Its impact on physicians has not been described. This study was undertaken to develop a fuller understanding of the collaboration experience and its outcomes.Methods: Twenty-five medical residents, 32 staff nurses, 5 physician and 5 nurse faculty wrote narratives about successful collaboration; the narratives were then qualitatively analyzed. Narrative analysis was the initial qualitative method iteratively employed to identify themes. A phenomenological approach was subsequently used to develop a framework for collaborative competence.Results: Collaboration triggers, facilitative behaviors, outcomes and collaborative competence were the themes identified. Affect was identified in the triggers leading to collaboration and in its outcomes. Practioners typically entered a care episode feeling worried, uncertain or inadequate and finished the interaction feeling satisfied, understood and grateful to their colleagues. The frequency of affective experience was not altered by gender, profession, or ethnicity. These experiences were particularly powerful for novice practioners of both disciplines and appear to have both formative and transformative potential. Collaborative competence was characterized by a series of graduated skills in clinical and relational domains. Many stories took place in the ICU and afterhours settings.Conclusions: Despite the prevailing wisdom that nursing and medicine are qualitatively different, the stories from this study illuminate surprising commonalities in the collaboration experience, regardless of gender, age, experience, or profession. Collaborative competence can be defined and its component skills identified. Contexts of care can be identified that offer particularly rich opportunities to foster interprofessional collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]