Search

BackgroundCurrent evaluation methods are mismatched with the speed of health care innovation and needs of health care delivery partners. We introduce a qualitative approach called the lightning report method and its specific product-the "Lightning Report." We compare implementation evaluation results across four projects to explore report sensitivity and the potential depth and breadth of lightning report method findings.MethodsThe lightning report method was refined over 2.5 years across four projects: team-based primary care, cancer center transformation, precision health in primary care, and a national life-sustaining decisions initiative. The novelty of the lightning report method is the application of Plus/Delta/Insight debriefing to dynamic implementation evaluation. This analytic structure captures Plus ("what works"), Delta ("what needs to be changed"), and Insights (participant or evaluator insights, ideas, and recommendations). We used structured coding based on implementation science barriers and facilitators outlined in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied to 17 Lightning Reports from four projects.ResultsHealth care partners reported that Lighting Reports were valuable, easy to understand, and they implied reports supported "corrective action" for implementations. Comparative analysis revealed cross-project emphasis on the domains of Inner Setting and Intervention Characteristics, with themes of communication, resources/staffing, feedback/reflection, alignment with simultaneous interventions and traditional care, and team cohesion. In three of the four assessed projects, the largest proportion of coding was to the clinic-level domain of Inner Setting-ranging from 39% for the cancer center project to a high of 56% for the life-sustaining decisions project.ConclusionsThe lightning report method can fill a gap in rapid qualitative approaches and is generalizable with consistent but flexible core methods. Comparative analysis suggests it is a sensitive tool, capable of uncovering differences and insights in implementation across projects. The Lightning Report facilitates partnered evaluation and communication with stakeholders by providing real-time, actionable insights in dynamic health care implementations.

PURPOSE Pre-visit planning (PVP) is believed to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and experience of care, yet numerous implementation barriers exist. There are opportunities for technology-enabled and artificial intelligence (AI) support to augment existing human-driven PVP processes--from appointment reminders and pre-visit questionnaires to pre-visit order sets and care gap closures. This study aimed to explore the current state of PVP, barriers to implementation, evidence of impact, and potential use of non-AI and AI tools to support PVP. METHODS We used an environmental scan approach involving: (1) literature review; (2) key informant interviews with PVP experts in ambulatory care; and (3) a search of the public domain for technology-enabled and AI solutions that support PVP. We then synthesized the findings using a qualitative matrix analysis. RESULTS We found 26 unique PVP implementations in the literature and conducted 16 key informant interviews. Demonstration of impact is typically limited to process outcomes, with improved patient outcomes remaining elusive. Our key informants reported that many PVP barriers are human effort-related and see potential for non-AI and AI technologies to support certain aspects of PVP. We identified 8 examples of commercially available technology-enabled tools that support PVP, some with AI capabilities; however, few of these have been independently evaluated. CONCLUSIONS As health systems transition toward value-based payment models in a world where the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has shifted patient care into the virtual space, PVP activities--driven by humans and supported by technology--may become more important and powerful and should be rigorously evaluated. Key words: ambulatory care; artificial intelligence; qualitative methods, INTRODUCTION Similar to pre-flight checklists for pilots, experts widely recommend pre-visit planning (PVP) before patient encounters to enhance the quality, efficiency, and experience of care. (1,2) Pre-visit planning can help [...]

Background: Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis. Methods: We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes. Results: Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time. Conclusion: Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Tracking adaptations during implementation can help assess and interpret outcomes. The framework for reporting adaptations and modifications‐expanded (FRAME) provides a structured approach to characterize adaptations. We applied the FRAME across multiple health services projects, and developed an analytic approach to assess the impact of adaptations. Methods: Mixed methods analysis of research diaries from seven quality improvement (QI) and research projects during the early stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Using the FRAME as a codebook, discrete adaptations were described and categorized. We then conducted a three‐step analysis plan: (1) calculated the frequency of adaptations by FRAME categories across projects; (2) qualitatively assessed the impact of adaptations on project goals; and (3) qualitatively assessed relationships between adaptations within projects to thematically consolidate adaptations to generate more explanatory value on how adaptations influenced intervention progress and outcomes. Results: Between March and July 2020, 42 adaptations were identified across seven health services projects. The majority of adaptations related to training or evaluation (52.4%) with the goal of maintaining the feasibility (66.7%) of executing projects during the pandemic. Five FRAME constructs offered the most explanatory benefit to assess the impact of adaptations on program and evaluation goals, providing the basis for creating an analytic approach dubbed the "A‐FRAME," analysis of FRAME data. Using the A‐FRAME, the 42 adaptations were consolidated into 17 succinct adaptations. Two QI projects discontinued altogether. Intervention adaptations related to staffing, training, or delivery, while evaluation adaptations included design, recruitment, and data collection adjustments. Conclusions: By sifting qualitative data about adaptations into the A‐FRAME, implementers and researchers can succinctly describe how adaptations affect interventions and their evaluations. The simple and concise presentation of information using the A‐FRAME matrix can help implementers and evaluators account for the influence of adaptations on program outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this evaluation was to assess caregiver experience and burden during their first year in a geriatric home-based primary care (HBPC) program with qualitative interviews and surveys. HBPC included in-home visits for homebound, older adult patients. Seventeen caregivers, with varied amount of experience with HBPC, participated in semi-structured interviews. Change in caregiver burden from baseline was captured for 44 caregivers at 3 months post-enrollment, 27 caregivers at 6 months, and 22 caregivers at 12 months. Satisfaction survey was administered at these timepoints, but the last response of 48 caregivers was analyzed. Caregiver interviews revealed three themes: caregiving stressors, reliance on HBPC in relation to other medical care, and healthcare in the home. Surveyed caregivers were highly satisfied, but burden did not change substantially over the 1 year intervention. Caregivers appreciated HBPC reduced patient transportation and provided satisfactory primary care, but additional research is needed to tailor this care to reduce caregiver burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background While most people faced with a terminal illness would prefer to die at home, less than a third in England are enabled to do so with many dying in National Health Service hospitals. Patients are more likely to die at home if their carers receive professional support. Hospice rapid response teams, which provide specialist palliative care at home on a 24/7 on-call basis, are proposed as an effective way to help terminally ill patients die in their preferred place, usually at home. However, the effectiveness of rapid response teams has not been rigorously evaluated in terms of patient, carer and cost outcomes. Methods/Design The study is a pragmatic quasi-experimental controlled trial. The primary outcome for the quantitative evaluation for patients is dying in their preferred place of death. Carers’ quality of life will be evaluated using postal questionnaires sent at patient intake to the hospice service and eight months later. Carers’ perceptions of care received and the patient’s death will be assessed in one to one interviews at 6 to 8 months post bereavement. Service utilisation costs including the rapid response intervention will be compared to those of usual care. Discussion The study will contribute to the development of the evidence base on outcomes for patients and carers and costs of hospice rapid response teams operating in the community. Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN32119670.