Search

Background: The African Surgical OutcomeS-2 (ASOS-2) trial tested an enhanced postoperative surveillance intervention to reduce postoperative mortality in Africa. We undertook a concurrent evaluation to understand the process of intervention delivery.Methods: Mixed-methods process evaluation, including field notes, interviews, and post-trial questionnaire responses. Qualitative analysis used the framework method with subsequent creation of comparative case studies, grouping hospitals by intervention fidelity. A post-trial questionnaire was developed using initial qualitative analyses. Categorical variables were summarised as count (%) and continuous variables as median (inter-quartile range [IQR]). Odds ratios (OR) were used to rank influences by impact on fidelity.Results: The dataset included eight in-depth case studies, and 96 questionnaire responses (response rate 67%) plus intervention fidelity data for each trial site. Overall, 57% (n=55/96) of hospitals achieved intervention delivery using an inclusive definition of fidelity. Delivery of the ASOS-2 interventions and data collection presented a significant burden to the investigators, outstripping limited resources. The influences most associated with fidelity were: surgical staff enthusiasm for the trial (OR=3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-7.0); nursing management support of the trial (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.5); performance of a dummy run (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1); nursing colleagues seeing the value of the intervention(s) (OR=2.1; 95% CI, 0.9-5.7); and site investigators' belief in the effectiveness of the intervention (OR=3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-9.4).Conclusions: ASOS-2 has proved that coordinated interventional research across Africa is possible, but delivering the ASOS-2 interventions was a major challenge for many investigators. Future improvement science efforts must include better planning for intervention delivery, additional support to investigators, and promotion of strong inter-professional teamwork.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials gov NCT03853824. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction of Care Protocols and Bundles The 1980s saw the establishment of intensivist groups with managerial and clinical oversights of the ICU, including the rise of ICU directors who individually provided oversight of critical care operations within a hospital (52). Early studies of ICU culture failed to show a significant relationship between culture and outcome (38), likely because these studies approached ICU culture too broadly, without attention to the specific nuances of the ICU environment. Yet 50 years ago, as Max Harry Weil, Peter Safar, William Shoemaker, and other visionaries met in Los Angeles to found the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), intensive care medicine was still a fledgling specialty and the ICU as a fixture of hospital-based care was far from established. Weled BJ, Adzhigirey LA, Hodgman TM, et al; Task Force on Models for Critical Care: Critical care delivery: The importance of process of care and ICU structure to improved outcomes: An update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force on models of critical care. The ICU Without Walls Rapid response teams and ICU outreach teams were established with the goal of extending the expertise of intensivist physicians and nurses outside the ICU (61, 62). [Extracted from the article]

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]

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: The benefit of early integration of palliative care into oncological care is suggested to be due to increased psychosocial support. In Belgium, psychosocial care is part of standard oncological care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to examine whether early and systematic integration of palliative care alongside standard psychosocial oncological care provides added benefit compared with usual care.Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, eligible patients were 18 years or older, and had advanced cancer due to a solid tumour, an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of 12 months, and were within the first 12 weeks of a new primary tumour or had a diagnosis of progression. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by block design using a computer-generated sequence, either to early and systematic integration of palliative care into oncological care, or standard oncological care alone in a setting where all patients are offered multidisciplinary oncology care by medical specialists, psychologists, social workers, dieticians, and specialist nurses. The primary endpoint was change in global health status/quality of life scale assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (EORTC QLQ C30) at 12 weeks. The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL), which includes the additional existential wellbeing dimension, was also used. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing, but closed for accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865396.Findings: From April 29, 2013, to Feb 29, 2016, we screened 468 patients for eligibility, of whom 186 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the early and systematic palliative care group (92 patients) or the standard oncological care group (94). Compliance at 12 weeks was 71% (65 patients) in the intervention group versus 72% (68) in the control group. The overall quality of life score at 12 weeks, by the EORTC QLQ C30, was 54·39 (95% CI 49·23-59·56) in the standard oncological care group versus 61·98 (57·02-66·95) in the early and systematic palliative care group (difference 7·60 [95% CI 0·59-14·60]; p=0·03); and by the MQOL Single Item Scale, 5·94 (95% CI 5·50-6·39) in the standard oncological care group versus 7·05 (6·59-7·50) in the early and systematic palliative care group (difference 1·11 [95% CI 0·49-1·73]; p=0.0006).Interpretation: The findings of this study show that a model of early and systematic integration of palliative care in oncological care increases the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Our findings also show that early and systematic integration of palliative care is more beneficial for patients with advanced cancer than palliative care consultations offered on demand, even when psychosocial support has already been offered. Through integration of care, oncologists and specialised palliative care teams should work together to enhance the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.Funding: Research Foundation Flanders, Flemish Cancer Society (Kom Op Tegen Kanker). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, the central government provided health and radiation-related information that was incomplete, difficult to understand and contradictory, leading to widespread distrust in the community. Thus, from 2013 to 2014, we developed and implemented a series of health literacy training workshops for local public health nurses, often the first health care professionals with whom members of the community interact. The results from our program evaluation revealed that the task of paraphrasing professional terms and skills related to relaying numeric information to the community were difficult for the nurses to acquire. In 2016, to further support the communication efforts of public health nurses, we developed a pocket-size "health literacy toolkit" that contained a glossary explaining radiation-related terms in plain language and an index to measure the accessibility of both text and numerical information, so that nurses could calibrate and appreciate the literacy demand of information. This case study documents an interprofessional collaborative effort for the development of the toolkit, and highlights the iterative process of building health literacy skills in health care professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A considerable proportion of patients with mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) experience long-lasting somatic, cognitive, and emotional symptoms that may hamper their capacity to return to work (RTW). Although several studies have described medical, psychological, and work-related factors that predict RTW after TBI, well-controlled intervention studies regarding RTW are scarce. Furthermore, there has traditionally been weak collaboration among health-related rehabilitation services, the labor and welfare sector, and workplaces.Methods/design: This study protocol describes an innovative randomized controlled trial in which we will explore the effect of combining manualized cognitive rehabilitation (Compensatory Cognitive Training [CCT]) and supported employment (SE) on RTW and related outcomes for patients with mild to moderate TBI in real-life competitive work settings. The study will be carried out in the southeastern region of Norway and thereby be performed within the Norwegian welfare system. Patients aged 18-60 years with mild to moderate TBI who are employed in a minimum 50% position at the time of injury and sick-listed 50% or more for postconcussive symptoms 2 months postinjury will be included in the study. A comprehensive assessment of neurocognitive function, self-reported symptoms, emotional distress, coping style, and quality of life will be performed at baseline, immediately after CCT (3 months after inclusion), following the end of SE (6 months after inclusion), and 12 months following study inclusion. The primary outcome measures are the proportion of participants who have returned to work at 12-month follow-up and length of time until RTW, in addition to work stability as well as work productivity over the first year following the intervention. Secondary outcomes include changes in self-reported symptoms, emotional and cognitive function, and quality of life. Additionally, a qualitative RTW process evaluation focused on organizational challenges at the workplace will be performed.Discussion: The proposed study will combine cognitive and vocational rehabilitation and explore the efficacy of increased cross-sectoral collaboration between specialized health care services and the labor and welfare system. If the intervention proves effective, the project will describe the cost-effectiveness and utility of the program and thereby provide important information for policy makers. In addition, knowledge about the RTW process for persons with TBI and their workplaces will be provided.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03092713 . Registered on 10 March 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a common illness with great human costs and a significant burden on the public economy. Previous studies have indicated that collaborative care (CC) has a positive effect on symptoms when provided to people with depression, but CC has not yet been applied in a Danish context. We therefore developed a model for CC (the Collabri model) to treat people with depression in general practice in Denmark. Since systematic identification of patients is an "active ingredient" in CC and some literature suggests case finding as the best alternative to standard detection, the two detection methods are examined as part of the study. The aim is to investigate if treatment according to the Collabri model has an effect on depression symptoms when provided to people with depression in general practice in Denmark, and to examine if case finding is a better method to detect depression in general practice than standard detection.Methods/design: The trial is a cluster-randomised, clinical superiority trial investigating the effect of treatment according to the Collabri model for CC, compared to treatment as usual for 480 participants diagnosed with depression in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is depression symptoms (Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include depression symptoms (BDI-II) after 15 months, anxiety symptoms (Beck's Anxiety Inventory (BAI)), level of functioning (Global Assessment of Function (GAF)) and psychological stress (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)). In addition, case finding (with the recommended screening tool Major Depression Inventory (MDI)) and standard detection of depression is examined in a cluster-randomized controlled design. Here, the primary outcome is the positive predictive value of referral diagnosis.Discussion: If the Collabri model is shown to be superior to treatment as usual, the study will contribute with important knowledge on how to improve treatment of depression in general practice, with major benefit to patients and society. If case finding is shown to be superior to standard detection, it will be recommended as the detection method in future treatment according to the Collabri model.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016. [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]

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: Falls among community-dwelling older adults are a serious public health concern. While evidence-based fall prevention strategies are available, their effective implementation requires broad cross-sector coordination that is beyond the capacity of any single institution or organization. Community groups comprised of diverse stakeholders that include public health, care providers from the public and private sectors and citizen volunteers are working to deliver locally-based fall prevention. These groups are examples of collective impact and are important venues for public health professionals (PHPs) to deliver their mandate to work collaboratively towards achieving improved health outcomes. This study explores the process of community-based group work directed towards fall prevention, and it focuses particular attention on the collaborative leadership practices of PHPs, in order to advance understanding of the competencies required for collective impact.Methods: Four community groups, located in Ontario, Canada, were studied using an exploratory, retrospective, multiple case study design. The criteria for inclusion were presence of a PHP, a diverse membership and the completion of an initiative that fit within the scope of the World Health Organization Fall Prevention Model. Data were collected using interviews (n = 26), focus groups (n = 4), and documents. Cross-case synthesis was conducted by a collaborative team of researchers.Results: The community groups differed by membership, the role of the PHP and the type of fall prevention initiatives. Seven practice themes emerged: (1) tailoring to address context; (2) making connections; (3) enabling communication; (4) shaping a vision; (5) skill-building to mobilize and take action; (6) orchestrating people and projects; and (7) contributing information and experience. The value of recognized leadership competencies was underscored and the vital role of institutional supports was highlighted.Conclusion: To align stakeholders working towards fall prevention for community-dwelling older adults and establish a foundation for collective impact, public health professionals employed practices that reflected a collaborative leadership style. Looking ahead, public health professionals will want to shift their focus to evaluating the effectiveness of their group work within communities. They will also need to assess outcomes and evaluate whether the anticipated reductions in fall rates among community-dwelling older adults is being achieved. [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: Paramedics make important and increasingly complex decisions at scene about patient care. Patient safety implications of influences on decision making in the pre-hospital setting were previously under-researched. Cutting edge perspectives advocate exploring the whole system rather than individual influences on patient safety. Ethnography (the study of people and cultures) has been acknowledged as a suitable method for identifying health care issues as they occur within the natural context. In this paper we compare multiple methods used in a multi-site, qualitative study that aimed to identify system influences on decision making.Methods: The study was conducted in three NHS Ambulance Trusts in England and involved researchers from each Trust working alongside academic researchers. Exploratory interviews with key informants e.g. managers (n = 16) and document review provided contextual information. Between October 2012 and July 2013 researchers observed 34 paramedic shifts and ten paramedics provided additional accounts via audio-recorded 'digital diaries' (155 events). Three staff focus groups (total n = 21) and three service user focus groups (total n = 23) explored a range of experiences and perceptions. Data collection and analysis was carried out by academic and ambulance service researchers as well as service users. Workshops were held at each site to elicit feedback on the findings and facilitate prioritisation of issues identified.Results: The use of a multi-method qualitative approach allowed cross-validation of important issues for ambulance service staff and service users. A key factor in successful implementation of the study was establishing good working relationships with academic and ambulance service teams. Enrolling at least one research lead at each site facilitated the recruitment process as well as study progress. Active involvement with the study allowed ambulance service researchers and service users to gain a better understanding of the research process. Feedback workshops allowed stakeholders to discuss and prioritise findings as well as identify new research areas.Conclusion: Combining multiple qualitative methods with a collaborative research approach can facilitate exploration of system influences on patient safety in under-researched settings. The paper highlights empirical issues, strengths and limitations for this approach. Feedback workshops were effective for verifying findings and prioritising areas for future intervention and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Members of the healthcare team must access and share patient information to coordinate interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP). Although some evidence suggests that electronic health records (EHRs) contribute to in-team communication breakdowns, EHRs are still widely hailed as tools that support ICP. If EHRs are expected to promote ICP, researchers must be able to longitudinally study the impact of EHRs on ICP across communication types, users, and physical locations.Objective: This paper presents a data collection and analysis tool, named the Map of the Clinical Interprofessional Communication Spaces (MCICS), which supports examining how EHRs impact ICP over time, and across communication types, users, and physical locations.Methods: The tool's development evolved during a large prospective longitudinal study conducted at a Canadian pediatric academic tertiary-care hospital. This two-phased study [i.e., pre-implementation (phase 1) and post implementation (phase 2)] of an EHR employed a constructivist grounded theory approach and triangulated data collection strategies (i.e., non-participant observations, interviews, think-alouds, and document analysis). The MCICS was created through a five-step process: (i) preliminary structural development based on the use of the paper-based chart (phase 1); (ii) confirmatory review and modification process (phase 1); (iii) ongoing data collection and analysis facilitated by the map (phase 1); (iv) data collection and modification of map based on impact of EHR (phase 2); and (v) confirmatory review and modification process (phase 2).Results: Creating and using the MCICS enabled our research team to locate, observe, and analyze the impact of the EHR on ICP, (a) across oral, electronic, and paper communications, (b) through a patient's passage across different units in the hospital, (c) across the duration of the patient's stay in hospital, and (d) across multiple healthcare providers. By using the MCICS, we captured a comprehensive, detailed picture of the clinical milieu in which the EHR was implemented, and of the intended and unintended consequences of the EHR's deployment. The map supported our observations and analysis of ICP communication spaces, and of the role of the patient chart in these spaces.Conclusions: If EHRs are expected to help resolve ICP challenges, it is important that researchers be able to longitudinally assess the impact of EHRs on ICP across multiple modes of communication, users, and physical locations. Mapping the clinical communication spaces can help EHR designers, clinicians, educators and researchers understand these spaces, appreciate their complexity, and navigate their way towards effective use of EHRs as means for supporting ICP. We propose that the MCICS can be used "as is" in other academic tertiary-care pediatric hospitals, and can be tailored for use in other healthcare institutions. [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: 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]

In this study, we aim to describe the pathways to care for patients with first-episode psychosis in Singapore. We analyzed data from 900 individuals accepted by the Singapore Early Psychosis Intervention Programme between 2007 and 2012. The most common first contacts were specialist care (59%), primary care (27%), and the police (12%). Multivariate regression models showed that first contact with services varied according to demographic variables and diagnosis. The duration of untreated psychosis, total number of contacts before referral, and rate of referral to the Early Psychosis Intervention Programme varied according to demographic and clinical variables and first contact. We hope that this information will enable clinicians, managers, and other service providers to target interventions to streamline referrals, reduce distress, and improve the treatment of young people with psychotic illnesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ageing has become a worldwide reality and presents new challenges for the health-care system. Research has shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing, both potentially inappropriate medications and potentially prescribing omissions, is highly prevalent in older people, especially in the nursing home setting. The presence of potentially inappropriate medications/potentially prescribing omissions is associated with adverse drug events, hospitalisations, mortality and health-care costs. The Collaborative approach to Optimise MEdication use for Older people in Nursing homes (COME-ON) study aims to evaluate the effect of a complex, multifaceted intervention, including interdisciplinary case conferences, on the appropriateness of prescribing of medicines for older people in Belgian nursing homes.Methods/design: A multicentre cluster-controlled trial is set up in 63 Belgian nursing homes (30 intervention; 33 control). In each of these nursing homes, 35 residents (≥65 years) are selected for participation. The complex, multifaceted intervention comprises (i) health-care professional education and training, (ii) local concertation (discussion on the appropriate use of at least one medication class at the level of the nursing home) and (iii) repeated interdisciplinary case conferences between general practitioner, nurse and pharmacist to perform medication review for each included nursing home resident. The control group works as usual. The study period lasts 15 months. The primary outcome measures relate to the appropriateness of prescribing and are defined as (1) among residents who had at least one potentially inappropriate medication/potentially prescribing omission at baseline, the proportion of them for whom there is a decrease of at least one of these potentially inappropriate medications/potentially prescribing omissions at the end of study, and (2) among all residents, the proportion of them for whom at least one new potentially inappropriate medication/potentially prescribing omission is present at the end of the study, compared to baseline. The secondary outcome measures include individual components of appropriateness of prescribing, medication use, outcomes of the case conferences, clinical outcomes and costs. A process evaluation (focusing on implementation, causal mechanisms and contextual factors) will be conducted alongside the study.Discussion: The COME-ON study will contribute to a growing body of knowledge concerning the effect of complex interventions on the use of medicines in the nursing home setting, and on factors influencing their effect. The results will inform policymakers on strategies to implement in the near future.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66138978. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To use data from a randomized trial to determine the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care (CC) depression and anxiety treatment program and to assess effects of the CC program on health care utilization.Methods: The CC intervention's impact on health-related quality of life, depression-free days (DFDs), and anxiety-free days (AFDs) over the 24-week postdischarge period was calculated and compared with the enhanced usual care (EUC) condition using independent samples t tests and random-effects regression models. Costs for both the CC and EUC conditions were calculated on the basis of staff time, overhead expenses, and treatment materials. Using this information, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A cost-effectiveness acceptability plot was created using nonparametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications, and the likelihood of the CC intervention's cost-effectiveness was assessed using standard cutoffs. As a secondary analysis, we determined whether the CC intervention led to reductions in postdischarge health care utilization and costs.Results: The CC intervention was more costly than the EUC intervention ($209.86 vs. $34.59; z = -11.71; P < 0.001), but was associated with significantly greater increases in quality-adjusted life-years (t = -2.49; P = 0.01) and DFDs (t = -2.13; P = 0.03), but not AFDs (t = -1.92; P = 0.057). This translated into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3337.06 per quality-adjusted life-year saved, $13.36 per DFD, and $13.74 per AFD. Compared with the EUC intervention, the CC intervention was also associated with fewer emergency department visits but no differences in overall costs.Conclusions: This CC intervention was associated with clinically relevant improvements, was cost-effective, and was associated with fewer emergency department visits in the 24 weeks after discharge. [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: 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: 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: 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]

Background: Tobacco consumption is a preventable risk factor for chronic disease and complicates the treatment of medical conditions. Therefore, the German health insurance company AOK NORDWEST has developed a collaborative smoking cessation intervention for individuals with cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heavy smokers, with the aim of reducing tobacco consumption. The objective of the study ENTER is to evaluate the effectiveness of the collaborative smoking cessation intervention and determine its cost-effectiveness.Methods/design: This study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted with 40 medical practices that are being selected from different geographic regions in Germany. Participating medical practices will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. Within the medical practices, a total of 800 patients will be recruited for participation in the study and blinded to group assignment. Patients are included in the study if they are 18 years or older, insured by AOK, heavy smokers (smoke at least 20 cigarettes per day) and/or suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Exclusion criteria are patients who are nonsmokers, who have cognitive impairments or who are illiterate. Physicians from medical practices in the intervention group will motivate patients to participate in a smoking cessation program offered by the health insurance, refer them to the program and ask about their program participation. Physicians from medical practices in the control group will provide usual care. Data collection will take place on the date of study inclusion and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the amount of cigarettes consumed during the past 30 days, 12 months after the initial medical consultation. Secondary outcomes are abstinence from smoking, health-related quality of life and respiratory complaints. Moreover, a process evaluation and health economic analysis will be performed.Discussion: The results of this study will help to determine whether the collaborative smoking cessation intervention is an effective and feasible way to promote smoking cessation in the primary care setting and provide evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006079 . Registered 4 June 2014. [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]

Objectives. We identified the levels of joint action that led to collaboration between hospitals and local health departments (LHDs) using the hospital's community health needs assessments (CHNAs). Methods. In 2014, we conducted a content analysis of Missouri nonprofit hospitals (n = 34) CHNAs, and identified hospitals based on previously reported collaboration with LHDs. We coded the content according to the level of joint action. A comparison sample (n = 50) of Missouri nonprofit hospitals provided the basic comparative information on hospital characteristics. Results. Among the hospitals identified by LHDs, 20.6% were "networking," 20.6% were "coordinating," 38.2% were "cooperating," and 2.9% were "collaborating." Almost 18% of study hospitals had no identifiable level of joint action with LHDs based on their CHNAs. In addition, comparison hospitals were more often part of a larger system (74%) compared with study hospitals (52.9%). Conclusions. The results of our study helped develop a better understanding of levels of joint action from a hospital perspective. Our results might assist hospitals and LHDs in making more informed decisions about efficient deployment of resources for assessment processes and implementation plans. [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]

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]

Background: Studies show that using surgical safety checklists (SSCs) reduces complications. Many believe SSCs accomplish this by enhancing teamwork, but evidence is limited. Our study sought to relate teamwork to checklist performance, understand how they relate, and determine conditions that affect this relationship.Study Design: Using 2 validated tools for observing and coaching operating room teams, we evaluated the association between checklist performance with surgeon buy-in and 4 domains of surgical teamwork: clinical leadership, communication, coordination, and respect. Hospital staff in 10 South Carolina hospitals observed 207 procedures between April 2011 and January 2013. We calculated levels of checklist performance, buy-in, and measures of teamwork, and evaluated their relationship, controlling for patient and case characteristics.Results: Few teams completed most or all SSC items. Teams more often completed items considered procedural "checks" than conversation "prompts." Surgeon buy-in, clinical leadership, communication, a summary measure of teamwork overall, and observers' teamwork ratings positively related to overall checklist completion (multivariable model estimates from 0.04, p < 0.05 for communication to 0.17, p < 0.01 for surgeon buy-in). All measures of teamwork and surgeon buy-in related positively to completing more conversation prompts; none related significantly to procedural checks (estimates from 0.10, p < 0.01 for communication to 0.27, p < 0.001 for surgeon buy-in). Patient age was significantly associated with completing the checklist and prompts (p < 0.05); only case duration was positively associated with performing more checks (p < 0.10).Conclusions: Surgeon buy-in and surgical teamwork characterized by shared clinical leadership, open communication, active coordination, and mutual respect were critical in prompting case-related conversations, but not in completing procedural checks. Findings highlight the importance of surgeon engagement and high-quality, consistent teamwork for promoting checklist use and ensuring a safe surgical environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Service delivery innovation is at the heart of efforts to combat the growing burden of chronic disease and escalating healthcare expenditure. Small-scale, locally-led service delivery innovation is a valuable source of learning about the complexities of change and the actions of local change agents. This exploratory qualitative study captures the perspectives of clinicians and managers involved in a general practitioner-led integrated diabetes care innovation.Methods: Data on these change agents' perspectives on the local innovation and how it works in the local context were collected through focus groups and semi-structured interviews at two primary health care sites. Transcribed data were analysed thematically. Normalization Process Theory provided a framework to explore perspectives on the individual and collective work involved in putting the innovation into practice in local service delivery contexts.Results: Twelve primary health care clinicians, hospital-based medical specialists and practice managers participated in the study, which represented the majority involved in the innovation at the two sites. The thematic analysis highlighted three main themes of local innovation work: 1) trusting and embedding new professional relationships; 2) synchronizing services and resources; and 3) reconciling realities of innovation work. As a whole, the findings show that while locally-led service delivery innovation is designed to respond to local problems, convincing others to trust change and managing the boundary tensions is core to local work, particularly when it challenges taken-for-granted practices and relationships. Despite this, the findings also show that local innovators can and do act in both discretionary and creative ways to progress the innovation.Conclusions: The use of Normalization Process Theory uncovered some critical professional, organizational and structural factors early in the progression of the innovation. The key to local service delivery innovation lies in building coalitions of trust at the point of service delivery and persuading organizational and institutional mindsets to consider the opportunities of locally-led innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]