Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Effective implementation strategies might facilitate patient-centered medical home (PCMH) uptake and spread by targeting barriers to change. Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) is a multi-faceted implementation strategy that is based on a clinical-researcher partnership. It promotes organizational change by fostering innovation and the spread of those innovations that are successful. Previous studies demonstrated that EBQI accelerated PCMH adoption within Veterans Health Administration primary care practices, compared with standard PCMH implementation. Research to date has not documented fidelity to the EBQI implementation strategy, limiting usefulness of prior research findings. This paper develops and assesses clinical participants’ fidelity to three core EBQI elements for PCMH (EBQI-PCMH), explores the relationship between fidelity and successful QI project completion and spread (the outcome of EBQI-PCMH), and assesses the role of the clinical-researcher partnership in achieving EBQI-PCMH fidelity. Methods Nine primary care practice sites and seven across-sites, topic-focused workgroups participated (2010–2014). Core EBQI elements included leadership-frontlines priority-setting for QI, ongoing access to technical expertise, coaching, and mentoring in QI methods (through a QI collaborative), and data/evidence use to inform QI. We used explicit criteria to measure and assess EBQI-PCMH fidelity across clinical participants. We mapped fidelity to evaluation data on implementation and spread of successful QI projects/products. To assess the clinical-researcher partnership role in EBQI-PCMH, we analyzed 73 key stakeholder interviews using thematic analysis. Results Seven of 9 sites and 3 of 7 workgroups achieved high or medium fidelity to leadership-frontlines priority-setting. Fidelity was mixed for ongoing technical expertise and data/evidence use. Longer duration in EBQI-PCMH and higher fidelity to priority-setting and ongoing technical expertise appear correlated with successful QI project completion and spread. According to key stakeholders, partnership with researchers, as well as bi-directional communication between leaders and QI teams and project management/data support were critical to achieving EBQI-PCMH fidelity. Conclusions This study advances implementation theory and research by developing measures for and assessing fidelity to core EBQI elements in relationship to completion and spread of QI innovation projects or tools for addressing PCMH challenges. These results help close the gap between EBQI elements, their intended outcome, and the finding that EBQI-PCMH resulted in accelerated adoption of PCMH.

ObjectiveChronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM.DesignSecondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.SettingFive integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions.ParticipantsStaff and high-risk PC patients in the VA.InterventionA multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.Outcome measures(a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain.ResultsMost (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned.ConclusionsPain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.

Medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) such as buprenorphine/naloxone can effectively treat OUD and reduce opioid-related mortality, but they remain underutilized, especially in non-substance use disorder settings such as primary care (PC). To uncover the factors that can facilitate successful prescribing of MOUD and uptake/acceptance of MOUD by patients in PC settings in the Veterans Health Administration. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 77 providers (e.g., primary care providers, hospitalists, nurses, addiction psychiatrists) and 22 Veteran patients with experience taking MOUD. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. Providers and patients shared their general perceptions and experiences with MOUD, including high satisfaction with buprenorphine/naloxone with few side effects and caveats, although some patients reported drawbacks to methadone. Both providers and patients supported the idea of prescribing MOUD in PC settings to prioritize patient comfort and convenience. Providers described individual-level barriers (e.g., time, stigma, perceptions of difficulty level), structural-level barriers (e.g., pharmacy not having medications ready, space for inductions), and organizational-level barriers (e.g., inadequate staff support, lack of nursing protocols) to PC providers prescribing MOUD. Facilitators centered on education and knowledge enhancement, workflow and practice support, patient engagement and patient-provider communication, and leadership and organizational support. The most common barrier faced by patients to starting MOUD was apprehensions about pain, while facilitators focused on personal motivation, encouragement from others, education about MOUD, and optimally timed provider communication strategies. These findings can help improve provider-, clinic-, and system-level supports for MOUD prescribing across multiple settings, as well as foster communication strategies that can increase patient acceptance of MOUD. They also point to how interprofessional collaboration across service lines and leadership support can facilitate MOUD prescribing among non-addiction providers.

Background Many healthcare systems seek to improve care for complex high-risk patients, but engaging such patients to actively participate in their healthcare can be challenging. Objective To identify and describe types of patient engagement strategies reported as successfully deployed by providers/teams and experienced by patients in a Veterans Health Administration (VA) intensive primary care (IPC) pilot program. Methods We conducted semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 29 VA IPC staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists) and 51 patients who had at least four IPC team encounters. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. Results The engagement strategies successfully deployed by the IPC providers/teams could be considered either more “facilitative,” i.e., facilitated by and dependent on staff actions, or more “self-sustaining,” i.e., taught to patients, thus cultivating their ongoing patient self-care. Facilitative strategies revolved around enhancing patient access and coordination of care, trust-building, and addressing social determinants of health. Self-sustaining strategies were oriented around patient empowerment and education, caregiver and/or community support, and boundaries and responsibilities. When patients described their experiences with the “facilitative” strategies, many discussed positive proximal outcomes (e.g., increased access to healthcare providers). Self-sustaining strategies led to positive (self-reported) longer-term clinical outcomes, such as behavior change. Conclusion We identified two categories of strategies for successfully engaging complex, high-risk patients: facilitative and self-sustaining. Intensive primary care program leaders may consider thoughtfully building “self-sustaining” engagement strategies into program development. Future research can confirm their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

BackgroundIntensive primary care (IPC) programs for patients with complex needs do not generate cost savings in most settings. Strengthening existing patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) to address the needs of these patients in primary care is a potential high-value alternative.ObjectivesExplore PCMH team functioning and characteristics that may impact their ability to perform IPC tasks; identify the IPC components that could be incorporated into PCMH teams’ workflow; and identify additional resources, trainings, and staff needed to better manage patients with complex needs in primary care.MethodsWe interviewed 44 primary care leaders, PCMH team members (providers, nurses, social workers), and IPC program leaders at 5 VA IPC sites and analyzed a priori themes using a matrix analysis approach.ResultsHigher-functioning PCMH teams were described as already performing most IPC tasks, including panel management and care coordination. All sites reported that PCMH teams had the knowledge and skills to perform IPC tasks, but not with the same intensity as specialized IPC teams. Home visits/assessments and co-attending appointments were perceived as not feasible to perform. Key stakeholders identified 6 categories of supports and capabilities that PCMH teams would need to better manage complex patients, with care coordination/management and fully staffed teams as the most frequently mentioned. Many thought that PCMH teams could make better use of existing VA and non-VA resources, but might need training in identifying and using those resources.ConclusionsPCMH teams can potentially offer certain clinic-based services associated with IPC programs, but tasks that are time intensive or require physical absence from clinic might require collaboration with community service providers and better use of internal and external healthcare system resources. Future studies should explore the feasibility of PCMH adoption of IPC tasks and the impact on patient outcomes.

BackgroundShift change handoffs are known to be a point of vulnerability in the quality, safety and outcomes of healthcare. Despite numerous efforts to improve handoff reliability, few interventions have produced lasting change. Although the opportunity to ask questions during patient handoff has been required by some regulatory bodies, the function of questions during handoff has been less well explored and understood.ObjectiveTo investigate questions and the functions they serve in nursing and medicine handoffs.Research designQualitative thematic analysis based on audio recordings of nurse-to-nurse, medical resident-to-resident and surgical intern-to-intern handoffs.SubjectsTwenty-seven nurse handoff dyads and 18 medical resident and surgical intern handoff dyads at one VA Medical Center.ResultsOur analysis revealed that the vast majority of questions were asked by the Incoming Providers. Although topics varied widely, the bulk of Incoming Provider questions requested information that would best help them understand individual patient conditions and plan accordingly. Other question types sought consensus on clinical reasoning or framing and alignment between the two professionals.ConclusionsHandoffs are a type of socially constructed work. Questions emerge with some frequency in virtually all handoffs but not in a linear or predictable way. Instead, they arise in the moment, as necessary, and without preplanning. A checklist cannot model this process element because it is a static memory aid and questions occur in a relational context that is emergent. Studying the different functions of questions during end of shift handoffs provides insights into the interface between the technical context in which information is transferred and the social context in which meaning is created.

BackgroundTools and procedures designed to improve end-of-shift handoffs through standardisation of processes and reliance on technology may miss contextually sensitive information about anticipated events that emerges during face-to-face handoff interactions. Such information, what we refer to as anticipatory management communication (AMC), is necessary to ensure timely and safe patient care, but has been little studied and understood.ObjectiveTo investigate AMC and the role it plays in nursing and medicine handoffs.Research designQualitative thematic analysis based on audio recordings of nurse-to-nurse, medical resident-to-resident and surgical intern-to-intern handoffs.Subjects27 nurse handoff dyads and 18 medical resident and surgical intern handoff dyads at one VA Medical Center.ResultsHeads-up information was the most frequent type of AMC across all handoff dyads (N=257; 108 resident and 149 nursing). Indirect instructions AMC was used in a little over half the resident handoff dyads, but occurred in all nursing dyads (292 instances). Direct instructions AMC occurred in roughly equal proportion across all dyads but at a modest frequency (N=45; 28 resident and 17 nursing). Direct (if/then) contingency AMC occurred in resident handoffs more frequently than in nursing handoffs (N=32; 30 resident and 2 nursing).ConclusionsThe different frequencies for types of AMC likely reflect differences in how residents and nurses work and disparate professional cultures. But, verbal communication in both groups included important information unlikely to be captured in written handoff tools or the electronic medical record, underscoring the importance of direct communication to ensure safe handoffs.

Background Within many large health care organizations, researchers and operations partners (i.e., policymakers, managers, clinical leaders) join to conduct studies to improve the quality of patient care. Yet optimal approaches to conducting partnership research and evaluation are only beginning to be clearly defined. The Veterans’ Health Administration (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), funded by operations leaders and administered by the VA’s research service, now has nearly two decades of experience in fostering research–operations partnerships for improving quality of VA care. The work reported here is part of a national evaluation of QUERI. Because individuals in research and operations often have differing backgrounds and perspectives, we aim to identify the main sources of tension in research–operations partnerships and strategies for maximizing partnership success, through the eyes of QUERI participants. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 116 researchers and operations partners chosen randomly from within pre-identified key participant groups. We conducted inductive qualitative analysis of verbatim interview transcripts, limited to the 89 interviews of individuals reporting at least some familiarity with QUERI. Results Tensions in research–operations partnerships were primarily related to diverging incentives and to differing values placed on scientific rigor or integrity versus quick timelines. To alleviate these tensions, operations’ partners highlighted the importance of ‘perspective-taking’ (i.e., putting themselves into the shoes of the researchers) to ensure a mutually beneficial and attractive partnership, whereas researchers identified the importance of overcoming the need for recognition to be apportioned between either research or operations for achieved results. Both researchers and operations participants identified jointly designing each partnership from the beginning, minimizing research bureaucracy burdens, and prioritizing in-person communication and long-term relationships as key partnership building blocks. Conclusions QUERI research and operations participants had largely concordant views on partnership tensions and approaches for improving partnership success. The fact that only researchers mentioned moving beyond recognition for the results achieved and only operations staff mentioned the importance of ‘perspective-taking’ suggests, however, that there may be unresolved tensions. These results suggest that researchers may benefit from better aligning of academic incentives with contributions to the health care organization and establishing formal recognition of operational impacts of research, while preserving some flexibility and independence of the research process.

Background Medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) such as buprenorphine/naloxone can effectively treat OUD and reduce opioid-related mortality, but they remain underutilized, especially in non-substance use disorder settings such as primary care (PC). Objective To uncover the factors that can facilitate successful prescribing of MOUD and uptake/acceptance of MOUD by patients in PC settings in the Veterans Health Administration. Design Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 77 providers (e.g., primary care providers, hospitalists, nurses, addiction psychiatrists) and 22 Veteran patients with experience taking MOUD. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. Key Results Providers and patients shared their general perceptions and experiences with MOUD, including high satisfaction with buprenorphine/naloxone with few side effects and caveats, although some patients reported drawbacks to methadone. Both providers and patients supported the idea of prescribing MOUD in PC settings to prioritize patient comfort and convenience. Providers described individual-level barriers (e.g., time, stigma, perceptions of difficulty level), structural-level barriers (e.g., pharmacy not having medications ready, space for inductions), and organizational-level barriers (e.g., inadequate staff support, lack of nursing protocols) to PC providers prescribing MOUD. Facilitators centered on education and knowledge enhancement, workflow and practice support, patient engagement and patient-provider communication, and leadership and organizational support. The most common barrier faced by patients to starting MOUD was apprehensions about pain, while facilitators focused on personal motivation, encouragement from others, education about MOUD, and optimally timed provider communication strategies. Conclusions These findings can help improve provider-, clinic-, and system-level supports for MOUD prescribing across multiple settings, as well as foster communication strategies that can increase patient acceptance of MOUD. They also point to how interprofessional collaboration across service lines and leadership support can facilitate MOUD prescribing among non-addiction providers.

Although the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2006) has found that the quality of health care has been improving and disparities narrowing for many minority group members in the United States, the opposite is the case for Hispanics. What is particularly alarming are recent statistics with regard to patient-centeredness for members of this population. Indeed, the extent to which care is perceived as being patient-centered is an area in which disparities between Hispanics and the rest of the U.S. citizenry have been widening (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2006). For instance, according to a study reported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2005), a central component of patient-centered care, the quality of patient-provider communication as reported by patients, declined among Hispanic adults from 2000-2002. This dissertation bridges organizational and health communication literatures and explores the experiences Hispanic American women have had with prenatal health care delivery at a hospital in the United States. The study investigated what meanings patient-centeredness (and its various dimensions such as patient-provider communication) has for these women, and how those meanings might differ from those of health organizations, providers, or scholars. Drawing on organizational communication theory and notions of patient-centeredness, this project also sought to enhance what is known about the organizational constraints and institutional discourses surrounding Hispanic women's access to and experience with prenatal care. Interviews with the patients revealed five key areas that reflect their expectations and desires for the type of care they receive (in order of importance/frequency): (a) being friendly \"amable\",(b) giving thorough and effective medical care, (c) having Spanish-speaking individuals available, (d) having patience, (e) explaining information well for comprehension, and (f) eliminating racism. For providers, definitions of patient-centered care aligned more closely with governmental and academic discourses, and they emphasized enabling and empowering patients to participate and be more actively involved in their own healthcare. The preferred communication medium for receiving health information for the patients was first and foremost orally/verbally. Other information needs and patient preferences were additionally explored and recommendations made based on the findings.