The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination

Dissemination, adaptation, and uptake of patient-facing materials to improve care coordination in primary care

Objective

We sought to improve patients' experience of care coordination by promoting the uptake of patient-facing tools with evidence of sustained use in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. We disseminated tools, adapted and improved tools in response to feedback, and tracked real-world uptake.

Methods

We conducted outreach to leadership and frontline providers at local, regional, and national levels. We collaborated with frontline providers and veteran patients using human-centered design approaches to guide tool adaptation. We assessed dissemination and real-world uptake through website analytics and QR code tracking.

Results

Tools included paper pamphlets that explained care processes, provided contact information, and answered frequently asked questions. Feedback resulted in use of larger fonts; pictures and colors; less dense text; and QR codes. Discussions led to development of new tools addressing current challenges coordinating care with VA-paid community providers. We observed substantial uptake (>2000 tool page views, >3000 QR code accesses).

Conclusion

Simple patient-facing tools are valuable to patients and frontline providers as evidenced by voluntary uptake despite competing demands.

Innovation

Tools with evidence of sustained uptake were adapted to address current challenges with navigating care and care coordination among VA and non-VA providers. QR codes enabled tracking of real-world uptake.

Virtual practice facilitation as an implementation strategy for launching opioid safety committees for quality improvement in primary care: feasibility, acceptability, and intervention fidelity

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitation (PF) is an evidence-based multicomponent in-person implementation strategy. COVID-19-related lockdowns caused many implementation initiatives to rapidly shift to virtual settings, but there is limited evidence on PF deployed exclusively using virtual meeting platforms. Our objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of virtual PF used in a primary care setting to implement interdisciplinary opioid safety committees (OSCs) to improve care for patients using opioid medicines for persistent pain and reduce high-dose opioid prescribing. We also describe alignment of virtual PF with the core functions of PF and fidelity of participating clinics to the OSC intervention.

METHODS

We applied qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate virtual PF used to implement a quality improvement project at Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington State. We established interdisciplinary OSCs in primary care clinics using virtual PF. OSCs were tasked with promoting opioid safety and high-quality pain care through population management and chart reviews. We used administrative data to calculate feasibility measures including attendance and retention. Acceptability data came from interviews with OSC members conducted by evaluators. Measures of fidelity to the OSC intervention were abstracted from meeting notes and administrative data. We used qualitative methods to assess the adherence of virtual PF to the core functions of PF.

RESULTS

Facilitators carried out a comprehensive PF approach virtually and demonstrated adherence to the core functions of PF. We established OSCs in eight clinics and conducted an average of 17.5 virtual PF meetings over eight months of PF for each clinic. Average attendance was 75% and we had 84% retention. OSC members were highly satisfied with virtual PF. Facilitators effectively supported teams through implementation and technical challenges and OSC members gained skills through virtual PF. We implemented OSCs with high fidelity, suggesting virtual PF is an effective implementation strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

We found virtual PF is a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy for this intervention and identified strategies to support care teams through challenges. Our findings can help inform future implementation efforts, especially those hoping to engage geographically dispersed clinics or remote clinical staff.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Systematic review of contemporary interventions for improving discharge support and transitions of care from the patient experience perspective

AIM

To synthesize the impact of improvement interventions related to care coordination, discharge support and care transitions on patient experience measures.

METHOD

Systematic review. Searches were completed in six scientific databases, five specialty journals, and through snowballing. Eligibility included studies published in English (2015-2023) focused on improving care coordination, discharge support, or transitional care assessed by standardized patient experience measures as a primary outcome. Two independent reviewers made eligibility decisions and performed quality appraisals.

RESULTS

Of 1240 papers initially screened, 16 were included. Seven studies focused on care coordination activities, including three randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. These studies used enhanced supports such as improvement coaching or tailoring for vulnerable populations within Patient-Centered Medical Homes or other primary care sites. Intervention effectiveness was mixed or neutral relative to standard or models of care or simpler supports (e.g., improvement tool). Eight studies, including three RCTs, focused on enhanced discharge support, including patient education (e.g., teach back) and telephone follow-up; mixed or neutral results on the patient experience were also found and with more substantive risks of bias. One pragmatic trial on a transitional care intervention, using a navigator support, found significant changes only for the subset of uninsured patients and in one patient experience outcome, and had challenges with implementation fidelity.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced supports for improving care coordination, discharge education, and post-discharge follow-up had mixed or neutral effectiveness for improving the patient experience with care, compared to standard care or simpler improvement approaches. There is a need to advance the body of evidence on how to improve the patient experience with discharge support and transitional approaches.

Reflective writing: a tool to support continuous learning and improved effectiveness in implementation facilitators

BACKGROUND

Implementation facilitators support the adoption of evidence-based practices and other improvement efforts in complex healthcare settings. Facilitators are trained to develop essential facilitation skills and facilitator effectiveness is typically evaluated post-implementation, but little is known about how facilitators apply and adapt didactic knowledge after training, or how learning and refining experiential knowledge occurs during the facilitation process. We propose the use of reflective writing as a tool to document and support facilitator learning and facilitator effectiveness.

METHODS

Using an instrumental case study of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project, we explore the use of reflective writing by facilitators to support their learning and effectiveness. Six primary care clinics participated in weekly hour-long facilitation calls over a 12-month period to implement quality improvement projects related to care coordination. Two facilitators completed templated reflections after each facilitation call for their assigned sites, totaling 269 reflections. We used the declarative-procedural-reflective model, which defines the process of skill development in clinical practice, to qualitatively analyze the reflections. Two independent coders used content analysis principles to code text that captured facilitators' observations, evaluations, interpretations, and communication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze reflections by facilitator and by code within and across reflections.

RESULTS

CTAC facilitators primarily used the reflections to summarize the calls (observation), assess the facilitation process and the tasks and activities they used (evaluation), document their thoughts about how to improve their own effectiveness (interpretation), and describe their communication with implementing teams. Ninety-one percent of reflections included observations, 42% interpretation, 41% evaluation, and 44% facilitator communication. In total, we coded 677 segments of text within reflections: 39% represented observation, 20% interpretation, 18% evaluation, and 23% facilitator communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of reflective writing allowed the CTAC facilitators the time and structure to evaluate their facilitation and to think critically about how to adjust their facilitation in response to their observations and interpretations. Reflective writing is a feasible and acceptable tool to support and document facilitator learning and effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03063294 ) on February 24, 2017.