Search

Background: While there is recognition by the greater medical community and physical therapists to address the biopsychosocial needs of people with chronic, persistent pain, there are challenges in implementation and delivery including wide variability in interventions, lack of clear rationale, and absence of clinical models that are feasible and acceptable on a large scale. Important components for psychologically informed physical therapy (PiPT) for pain care include behavioral approaches (e.g., Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), mindfulness, pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing (MI), and interoceptive skills-building. The Empower Veterans Program (EVP) Mindful Movement framework blends these components and emphasizes a mindfulness and self-compassion approach with MI and body-based experiential learning. This program was offered in-person at the Atlanta and Maryland VA Health Care Centers with published positive Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) pre-COVID 19 crisis and shifted to entirely remote delivery in March 2020. Objective: This paper offers an evidence-based and theory driven framework to operationalize a remotely delivered group-based psychologically informed mindful movement physical therapy intervention as part of an interdisciplinary pain care program. Methods: Since 2021 PRO and demographics are collected using a survey administered through Qualtrics over a 12-month period at baseline, immediately post TelePain EVP, at 6 months, and at 12 months, with findings forthcoming. Discussion/Results: Tele-pain EVP offers 6-9 groups a week with 7-9 veterans from Atlanta based team and 3-4 groups a week with 5-9 veterans from Maryland based team. Adaptations for remote delivery optimized mindfulness and active learning strategies including interoceptive skills-building and use of MI to support self-efficacy to trust, restore a sense of safety in the body, and explore adaptations for safe movement. Conclusion: TelePain-EVP Mindful Movement provides a framework for other programs to translate for their populations and systems to further develop best practices in PiPT for pain care and integration into interdisciplinary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Embedded pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly recommended for non-pharmacological pain care research due to their focus on examining intervention effectiveness within real-world settings. Engagement with patients, health care providers, and other partners is essential, yet there is limited guidance for how to use engagement to meaningfully inform the design of interventions to be tested in pain-related pragmatic clinical trials. This manuscript aims to describe the process and impacts of partner input on the design of two interventions (care pathways) for low back pain currently being tested in an embedded pragmatic trial in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Methods: Sequential cohort design for intervention development was followed. Engagement activities were conducted with 25 participants between November 2017 and June 2018. Participants included representatives from multiple groups: clinicians, administrative leadership, patients, and caregivers. Results: Partner feedback led to several changes in each of the care pathways to improve patient experience and usability. Major changes to the sequenced care pathway included transitioning from telephone-based delivery to a flexible telehealth model, increased specificity about pain modulation activities, and reduction of physical therapy visits. Major changes to the pain navigator pathway included transitioning from a traditional stepped care model to one that offers care in a feedback loop, increased flexibility regarding pain navigator provider type, and increased specificity for patient discharge criteria. Centering patient experience emerged as a key consideration from all partner groups. Conclusion: Diverse input is important to consider before implementing new interventions in embedded pragmatic trials. Partner engagement can increase acceptability of new care pathways to patients and providers and enhance uptake of effective interventions by health systems. Trial registration: NCT#04411420. Registered on 2 June 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high‐quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach. Aims: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically‐informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review. Results: Nineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process). Conclusion: Improvement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]