Search

Previous studies have shown Relational Coordination improves team functioning in healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to examine the relational factors needed to support team functioning in outpatient mental health care teams with low staffing ratios. We interviewed interdisciplinary mental health teams that had achieved high team functioning despite low staffing ratios in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. We conducted qualitative interviews with 21 interdisciplinary team members across three teams within two medical centers. We used directed content analysis to code the transcripts with a priori codes based on the Relational Coordination dimensions, while also being attentive to emergent themes. We found that all seven dimensions of Relational Coordination were relevant to improved team functioning: frequent communication, timely communication, accurate communication, problem-solving communication, shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect. Participants also described these dimensions as reciprocal processes that influenced each other. In conclusion, relational Coordination dimensions can play pivotal roles in improving team functioning both individually and in combination. Communication dimensions were a catalyst for developing relationship dimensions; once relationships were developed, there was a mutually reinforcing cycle between communication and relationship dimensions. Our results suggest that establishing high-functioning mental health care teams, even in low-staffed settings, requires encouraging frequent communication within teams. Moreover, attention should be given to ensuring appropriate representation of disciplines among leadership and defining roles of team members when teams are formed.

Co-design provides a meaningful way to engage patients in research. However, there is limited practical guidance. We used our co-design project to identify strategies for other researchers. An ethnographic case study design was used. Data included participant observation of co-design meetings, meeting minutes, analytic fieldnotes, qualitative patient interviews, and research team member self-reflections. Additionally, we got external feedback. We analyzed data iteratively. Our team included 5 patients and 6 researchers. We identified 3 strategies to include patients in co-design: (1) Deliberately build the team, from recruiting patients to specifying roles. (2) Tailor the meeting format to thoughtfully use patients' time and expertise. (3) Disrupt traditional hierarchies, to empower patients to actively participate. Researchers seeking to include patients as team members should consider: team composition and roles, leveraging meeting formats to optimize contributions and purposefully creating a culture of collaboration, so patient expertise informs the end product. Our work provides practical guidance for researchers to incorporate patient expertise in the co-design process and meaningfully involve them in their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundIncreasing the use of routine preventive care such as HIV testing is important, yet implementation of such evidence-based clinical care is complex. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) model for implementation posits that implementation will be most successful when the evidence, context, and facilitation strategies are strong for the clinical practice. We evaluated the relative importance of perceived evidence, context, and facilitation of HIV testing during the implementation of a multimodal intervention in US Department of Veterans Affairs primary care clinics.MethodsA multimodal intervention including clinical reminders (CRs), academic detailing--providing education sessions for providers--and social marketing to improve HIV testing was implemented in 15 VA primary care clinics in three regions. We conducted qualitative formative and process evaluations using semi-structured interviews with HIV lead clinicians, primary care lead clinicians, nurse managers, and social workers. Interviews were analyzed thematically to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of HIV testing and how these were addressed by the intervention. Sites were then rated high, medium, or low on the dimensions of perceived evidence and the context for testing. We then assessed the relationship of these ratings to improvements in HIV testing rates found in earlier quantitative analyses.ResultsSites that showed greatest improvements in HIV testing rates also rated high on evidence and context. Conversely, sites that demonstrated the poorest improvements in testing rates rated low on both dimensions. Perceptions of evidence and several contextual aspects resulted in both barriers and facilitators to implementing testing. Evidence barriers included provider perceptions of evidence for routine testing as irrelevant to their population. Contextual barriers included clinical reminder overload, insufficient resources, onerous consent processes, stigma, provider discomfort, and concerns about linking individuals who test positive to HIV treatment. While most barriers were ameliorated by the intervention, HIV stigma in particular regions and concerns about linkage to care persisted.ConclusionsInterventions to implement evidence-based practices such as HIV testing can be successful when utilizing proven quality improvement techniques. However, it is critical to address providers' perceptions of evidence and consider aspects of the local context in order to fully implement new routine clinical practices such as HIV testing.

INTRODUCTION: The development and spread of innovation are known challenges in health care. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a “Shark Tank”-style competition directed at frontline employees. In this annual, systemwide competition, employees submit innovations to the competition, and winning innovations receive support for implementation in other facilities. METHOD: A multiple case study design was used to understand facility engagement in the competition, and the relationship between engagement and organizational conditions. The authors created a typology to describe the relationship between facility engagement in the competition and organizational conditions for innovation. RESULTS: Overall, there was high participation in the VHA’s competition across all 130 facilities. The authors identified 7 mutually exclusive types of facility engagement. DISCUSSION: As expected, facilities with the most established conditions for innovation were the most engaged in the competition. Additionally, other facilities had various ways to be involved. Consequently, there may be benefit to the VHA tailoring how they work with facilities, based on organizational conditions. Larger facilities with ongoing research and more resources may be more suited to develop innovations, whereas smaller facilities could benefit from a focus on adoption. CONCLUSION: These insights are valuable to the VHA and can be used by other health care systems to tailor innovation programs and allocate resources based on diverse needs across a vast health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our research group created a public communication strategy of expressive writing, to use within our research center over the Massachusetts COVID-19 stay at home advisories. Our goals were to 1) build community, 2) recognize the unique experiences, needs, concerns and coping strategies of our colleagues, and 3) create a mechanism to creatively share those experiences. We conceptualized a weekly e-newsletter, "Creativity in the Time of COVID-19," a collective effort for expressing and documenting the extraordinary, lived experiences of our colleagues during this unique time of a coronavirus pandemic. Through 23 online issues, we have captured 72 colleagues' perspectives on social isolation, the challenges of working from home, and hope in finding connection through virtual platforms. We have organized the themes of these submissions, in the forms of photos, essays, poetry, original artwork, and more, according to three components of the Social Connection Framework: structural, functional and quality approaches to creating social connectedness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]