Search

Background: Assessing the fidelity of an implementation strategy is important to understand why and how the strategy influences the uptake of evidence-based interventions. The present study aims to assess the fidelity of the two procedures for engaging primary care (PC) professionals and for the deployment of an implementation strategy for optimizing type 2 diabetes prevention in routine PC within the PREDIAPS randomized cluster implementation trial. Method: We conducted a mixed-method fidelity evaluation study of the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy. Nine PC centers from the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza) were allocated to two different procedures to engage physicians and nurses and deploy a implementation strategy to model and adapt the clinical intervention and its implementation to their specific contexts: a Global procedure, promoting the cooperation of all healthcare professionals from the beginning; or a Sequential procedure, centered first on nurses who then pursued the pragmatic cooperation of physicians. Process indicators of the delivery and receipt of implementation strategy actions, documented modifications to the planned implementation strategy, and a structured group interview with centers' leaders were all used to assess the following components of fidelity: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, professionals' responsiveness and program differentiation. Results: Generally, the procedures compared for professionals engagement and deployment of the implementation strategy were carried out with the planned differentiation. Nonetheless, some unexpected between-group differences were observed, the initial rate of collaboration of nurses being higher in the Sequential (93%) than in the Global (67%) groups. Exposure rate to the programed implementation actions (% of hours received out of those delivered) were similar in both groups by professional category, with nurses (86%) having a higher rate of exposure than physicians (75%). Professionals identified half of the planned discrete strategies and their rating of strategies' perceived usefulness was overwhelmingly positive, with few differences between Sequential and Global centers. Conclusions: The PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy has been implemented with high fidelity and minor unplanned reactive modifications. Professionals' exposure to the implementation strategy was high in both groups. The centers' organizational context (i.e., work overload) led to small mismatches between groups in participation and exposure of professionals to implementation actions. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03254979. Registered 16 August 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate a novel mentor program for 27 US surgeons, charged with improving quality at their respective hospitals, having been paired 1:1 with 27 surgeon mentors through a state-wide quality improvement (QI) initiative.Design: Mixed-methods utilizing quantitative surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews.Setting: The Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC) utilized a novel Mentor Program to guide surgeons new to QI.Participants: All mentor-mentee pairs received the survey (n = 27). Purposive sampling identified a subset of mentors (n = 8) and mentees (n = 4) for in-depth semi-structured interviews.Intervention: Surgeons with expertise in QI mentored surgeons new to QI.Main Outcome Measures: (i) Quantitative: self-reported satisfaction with the mentor program; (ii) Qualitative: key themes suggesting actions and strategies to facilitate mentorship in QI.Results: Mentees expressed satisfaction with the mentor program (n = 24, 88.9%) and agreed that mentorship is vital to ISQIC (n = 24, 88.9%). Analysis of interview data revealed four key themes: (i) nuances of data management, (ii) culture of quality and safety, (iii) mentor-mentee relationship and (iv) logistics. Strategies from these key themes include: utilize raw data for in-depth QI understanding, facilitate presentations to build QI support, identify opportunities for in-person meetings and establish scheduled conference calls. The mentor's role required sharing experiences and acting as a resource. The mentee's role required actively bringing questions and identifying barriers.Conclusions: Mentorship plays a vital role in advancing surgeon knowledge and engagement with QI in ISQIC. Key themes in mentorship reflect strategies to best facilitate mentorship, which may serve as a guide to other collaboratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many patients with chronic physical illnesses have co-morbid psychological illnesses, which may respond to interprofessional collaborative care. Continuing education programs frequently focus on skills and knowledge relevant for individual illnesses, and unidisciplinary care. This study evaluates the impact of "Mind the Gap", an Australian interprofessional continuing education program about management of dual illnesses, on practitioners' knowledge, use of psychological strategies and collaborative practice.Methods: A 6-h module addressing knowledge and skills needed for patients with physical and psychological co-morbid illnesses was delivered to 837 practitioners from mixed health professional backgrounds, through locally-facilitated workshops at 45 Australian sites. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation, incorporating observation, surveys and network analysis using data collected, before, immediately after, and three months after training.Results: Six hundred forty-five participants enrolled in the evaluation (58 % GPs, 17 % nurses, 15 % mental health professionals, response rate 76 %). Participants' knowledge and confidence to manage patients with psychological and physical illnesses improved immediately. Among the subset surveyed at three months (response rate 24 %), referral networks had increased across seven disciplines, improvements in confidence and knowledge were sustained, and doctors, but no other disciplines, reported an increase in use of motivational interviewing (85.9 % to 96.8 %) and mindfulness (58.6 % to 74 %).Conclusions: Interprofessional workshops had an immediate impact on the stated knowledge and confidence of participants to manage patients with physical and psychological comorbidities, which appears to have been sustained. For some attendees, there was a sustained improvement in the size of their referral networks and their use of some psychological strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reduction in door-to-needle (DTN) times in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator is associated with improved outcomes. We hypothesized that a learning collaborative would rapidly reduce DTN times at Chicago's primary stroke centers.Methods and Results: We analyzed data from all adult patients with out-of-hospital ischemic stroke hospitalized between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 and who received tissue-type plasminogen activator in the emergency department at 15 primary stroke centers in Chicago and 15 primary stroke centers in St. Louis. We implemented a structured learning collaborative in Chicago in quarter 1 of 2013 that included (1) a quality improvement leader, (2) stroke content expert, (3) multidisciplinary teams from each site, (4) a targeted goal for the program (DTN time <60 minutes in >50% of patients treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator), and (5) face-to-face meetings with on-site visits. We used interrupted time-series analysis to compare the impact of the learning collaborative on DTN times in Chicago pre- and post implementation and also concurrently versus St. Louis. We prespecified adjustment for mode of arrival, emergency medical services prenotification, and onset-to-arrival times. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. In adjusted analysis, the reduction in DTN time within 1 quarter of implementation was 15.5 minutes (P=0.046) at Chicago sites versus 1.17 minutes at St. Louis sites (P=0.601).Conclusions: Using a learning collaborative model at Chicago's 15 primary stroke centers, we observed major reductions in DTN times within 1 quarter of implementation. Regional collaboration and best practices sharing should be a model for rapid and sustainable system-wide quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few evidence-based, on-line resources exist to support home-based care of childhood long-term conditions.Methods: In a feasibility study, children with stages 3, 4, or 5 chronic kidney disease, parents and professionals collaboratively developed a novel Online Parent Information and Support (OPIS) application. Parents were randomized to an intervention arm with access to OPIS or a control arm without access. OPIS usage was assessed using Google Analytics. Parents in the intervention arm completed the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) and User Interface Satisfaction (USE) questionnaires and participated in qualitative interviews.Results: Twenty parents accessed OPIS with a mean of 23.3 (SD 20.8, range 2-64) visits per user. Responses from the SAM and USE questionnaires were positive, most respondents rating OPIS highly and finding it easy to use. Qualitative suggestions include refinement of OPIS components, enabling personalization of OPIS functionalities and proactive endorsements of OPIS by professionals.Conclusions: Implementation of OPIS into standard practice is feasible in the centre where it was developed. Suggested developments will augment reported strengths to inform ongoing testing in the wider UK network of units. Our design and methods are transferrable to developing and evaluating web-applications to support home-based clinical care-giving for other long-term conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoporotic hip fractures are common injuries typically occurring in patients who are older and medically frail. Studies have suggested that creation of a multidisciplinary team including orthopaedic surgeons, internal medicine physicians, social workers, and specialized physical therapists, to comanage these patients can decrease complication rates, improve time to surgery, and reduce hospital length of stay; however, they have yet to achieve widespread implementation, partly owing to concerns regarding resource requirements necessary for a comanagement program.Questions/purposes: We performed an economic analysis to determine whether implementation of a comanagement model of care for geriatric patients with osteoporotic hip fractures would be a cost-effective intervention at hospitals with moderate volume. We also calculated what annual volume of cases would be needed for a comanagement program to "break even", and finally we evaluated whether universal or risk-stratified comanagement was more cost effective.Methods: Decision analysis techniques were used to model the effect of implementing a systems-based strategy to improve inpatient perioperative care. Costs were obtained from best-available literature and included salary to support personnel and resources to expedite time to the operating room. The major economic benefit was decreased initial hospital length of stay, which was determined via literature review and meta-analysis, and a health benefit was improvement in perioperative mortality owing to expedited preoperative evaluation based on previously conducted meta-analyses. A break-even analysis was conducted to determine the annual case volume necessary for comanagement to be either (1) cost effective (improve health-related quality of life enough to be worth additional expenses) or (2) result in cost savings (actually result in decreased total expenses). This calculation assumed the scenario in which a hospital could hire only one hospitalist (and therapist and social worker) on a full-time basis. Additionally, we evaluated the scenario where the necessary staff was already employed at the hospital and could be dedicated to a comanagement service on a part-time basis, and explored the effect of triaging only patients considered high risk to a comanagement service versus comanaging all geriatric patients. Finally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted on all critical variables, with broad ranges used for values around which there was higher uncertainty.Results: For the base case, universal comanagement was more cost effective than traditional care and risk-stratified comanagement (incremental cost effectiveness ratios of USD 41,100 per quality-adjusted life-year and USD 81,900 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Comanagement was more cost effective than traditional management as long as the case volume was more than 54 patients annually (range, 41-68 patients based on sensitivity analysis) and resulted in cost savings when there were more than 318 patients annually (range, 238-397 patients). In a scenario where staff could be partially dedicated to a comanagement service, universal comanagement was more cost effective than risk-stratified comanagement (incremental cost effectiveness of USD 2300 per quality-adjusted life-year), and both comanagement programs had lower costs and better outcomes compared with traditional management. Sensitivity analysis was conducted and showed that the level of uncertainty in key variables was not high enough to change the core conclusions of the model.Conclusions: Implementation of a systems-based comanagement strategy using a dedicated team to improve perioperative medical care and expedite preoperative evaluation is cost effective in hospitals with moderate volume and can result in cost savings at higher-volume centers. The optimum patient population for a comanagement strategy is still being defined.Level Of Evidence: Level 1, Economic and Decision Analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective communication is critical for health care professionals, particularly in the Emergency Department (ED). However, currently, there is no standardized consultation model that is consistently practiced by physicians or used for training medical graduates. Recently, the 5Cs of Consultation model (Contact, Communicate, Core Question, Collaborate, and Close the Loop) has been studied in Emergency Medicine residents using simulated consultation scenarios.Objective: Using an experimental design, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the 5Cs consultation model in a novel learner population (medical students) and in a "real time and real world" clinical setting.Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled study was conducted at eight large, academic, urban, tertiary-care medical centers (U.S. and Canada). Intervention involved two experimental groups (asynchronous and live training) compared to a baseline control group. All participants placed up to four consult phone calls. A senior physician observed and assessed each call using a preapproved 5Cs checklist and a Global Rating Scale (GRS).Results: Participants who received training (asynchronous or live) scored significantly higher on the 5Cs checklist total and GRS than the control group. Both training methods (asynchronous and live) were equally effective. Importantly, learning gains were sustained as students' 5Cs checklist total and GRS scores remained consistently higher at their second, third, and fourth consult (relative to their first consult). At posttest, all participants reported feeling more confident and competent in relaying patient information.Conclusion: Medical students can be trained to use the 5Cs model in a timely, inexpensive, and convenient manner and increase effectiveness of physician consultations originating from the ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainty about the nature of evaluation can lead to injury prevention programme evaluations being poorly resourced and poorly conducted. The aim of this paper is to demystify programme evaluation and, by stressing its function, offer a perspective on evaluation that may encourage its more widespread integration in the general activity of injury prevention and control. Programme evaluation is best understood simply as the process of getting answers to essential questions about a programme. Methodology used in evaluation needs to be based in empirical science but is otherwise unrestricted except by the chosen question and the practical circumstances relating to the programme and the community in which it is implemented. Discussion about which methodology is appropriate for evaluation research is (unwittingly) a debate about 'which questions should you be asking?'. If the right people ask the right (and properly formulated) questions and build the means of obtaining the information to answer these questions (using appropriate methodology) into the conduct of the programme then evaluation will no longer be a problem but an essential component of the overall effort to reduce the community burden of injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]