Primary care teams in Ireland: a qualitative mapping review of Irish grey and published literature

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators

Introduction:

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings.

Methods:

An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual).

Results:

Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals’ skills and contribution.

Conclusions:

The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Managing frailty in an Irish primary care setting: A qualitative study of perspectives of healthcare professionals and frail older patients

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the views of key stakeholders on frailty in Primary Care in Ireland. The aim of this study was to explore the views of Irish healthcare professionals and patients on frailty and its management in Primary Care.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive design was used. Seventeen healthcare professionals and three patients were recruited using purposive sampling. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews which were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (i) Perceptions of Frailty (ii) Current Management of Frailty and (iii) Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Primary Care. The results demonstrated variability in perspectives on frailty. Healthcare professionals described a fragmented service often delivering substandard care to frail older patients. The general consensus was that frailty management required an adequately resourced Primary Care service. Support for frailty screening and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment was evident while the suitability of the current pathway for patients requiring assessment was questioned.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights an absence of a shared and complete understanding of frailty among healthcare professionals and a fragmented model of care for community-dwelling frail older patients. Based on these findings, inter-professional training, investment in Primary Care, the development of a frailty pathway and an interface service is recommended.

The Public–Private Mix in Primary Care Development: The Case of Ireland

In 2001, Ireland announced a Primary Care Strategy that has led to the implementation of primary care centers (PCCs) throughout the country. This article examines the nature and extent of private and public sector involvement in establishing the PCC network since 2001. The study is based on a PCC dataset constructed using unpublished data obtained from Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE). The dataset includes the date when PCCs became operational and their mode of delivery: public procurement, private lease, or public–private partnership. The results show that 140 PCCs have or will become operational by the end of 2019: 35% (49 PCCs) are public, 55% (77) are leases with private landlords, and 10% (14) are public–private partnerships. Before 2009, PCCs were delivered by traditional public procurement, but since 2009, private delivery methods have been prioritized. In conclusion, the PCC network has been increasingly implemented by relying on the private sector. This results in a more commercialized network subject to financial risks associated with public–private partnerships.

Implementing community participation via interdisciplinary teams in primary care: An Irish case study in practice

Background

Community participation in primary care is enshrined in international and Irish health policy. However, there is a lack of evidence about how stakeholders work collectively to implement community participation within interdisciplinary teams; community perspectives are rarely captured, and a theoretical underpinning for implementation of community participation in primary care is absent.

Objective

To conduct a theoretically informed, multiperspectival empirical analysis of the implementation of community participation via primary care teams (PCTs) in Ireland.

Methods/Design/Participants

Participatory learning and action (PLA) focus groups and interviews were held with 39 participants across four case study sites within a nationally funded programme designed to enable disadvantaged communities to participate in primary care. Normalization process theory (NPT) informed data generation and analysis of how diverse stakeholder groups worked together to implement community participation via PCTs.

Results

The various stakeholders had a shared understanding of the value of community participation on PCTs. Motivations to get involved in this work varied, but were strong overall. Challenges to enacting community participation on PCTs included problems with the functioning of PCTs and a lack of clarity and confidence in the role of community representatives at PCT meetings. Informal appraisals were positive, but formal appraisal was limited.

Discussion and Conclusion

The implementation and sustainability of community participation on PCTs in Ireland will be limited unless (i) the functioning of PCTs is strong, (ii) there is increased confidence and clarity on community representatives’ roles among all health‐care professionals, and (iii) more sophisticated methods for formal appraisal are used.

Assessing the facilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary team working in primary care using normalisation process theory: An integrative review

Background

Interdisciplinary team working is of paramount importance in the reform of primary care in order to provide cost-effective and comprehensive care. However, international research shows that it is not routine practice in many healthcare jurisdictions. It is imperative to understand levers and barriers to the implementation process. This review examines interdisciplinary team working in practice, in primary care, from the perspective of service providers and analyses 1 barriers and facilitators to implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care and 2 the main research gaps.

Methods and findings

An integrative review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Following a search of 10 international databases, 8,827 titles were screened for relevance and 49 met the criteria. Quality of evidence was appraised using predetermined criteria. Data were analysed following the principles of framework analysis using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which has four constructs: sense making, enrolment, enactment, and appraisal. The literature is dominated by a focus on interdisciplinary working between physicians and nurses. There is a dearth of evidence about all NPT constructs apart from enactment. Physicians play a key role in encouraging the enrolment of others in primary care team working and in enabling effective divisions of labour in the team. The experience of interdisciplinary working emerged as a lever for its implementation, particularly where communication and respect were strong between professionals.

Conclusion

A key lever for interdisciplinary team working in primary care is to get professionals working together and to learn from each other in practice. However, the evidence base is limited as it does not reflect the experiences of all primary care professionals and it is primarily about the enactment of team working. We need to know much more about the experiences of the full network of primary care professionals regarding all aspects of implementation work.

Systematic review registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015019362.

Do primary care professionals agree about progress with implementation of primary care teams: results from a cross sectional study

Background

Primary care is the cornerstone of healthcare reform with policies across jurisdictions promoting interdisciplinary team working. The effective implementation of such health policies requires understanding the perspectives of all actors. However, there is a lack of research about health professionals’ views of this process. This study compares Primary Healthcare Professionals’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the Primary Care Strategy and Primary Care Team (PCT) implementation in Ireland.

Methods

Design and Setting: e-survey of (1) General Practitioners (GPs) associated with a Graduate Medical School (N = 100) and (2) Primary Care Professionals in 3 of 4 Health Service Executive (HSE) regions (N = 2309). After piloting, snowball sampling was used to administer the survey. Descriptive analysis was carried out using SPSS. Ratings across groups were compared using non-parametric tests.

Results

There were 569 responses. Response rates varied across disciplines (71 % for GPs, 22 % for other Primary Healthcare Professionals (PCPs). Respondents across all disciplines viewed interdisciplinary working as important. Respondents agreed on lack of progress of implementation of formal PCTs (median rating of 2, where 1 is no progress at all and 5 is complete implementation). GPs were more negative about the effectiveness of the Strategy to promote different disciplines to work together (median rating of 2 compared to 3 for clinical therapists and 3.5 for nurses, P = 0.001). Respondents identified resources and GP participation as most important for effective team working. Protected time for meetings and capacity to manage workload for meetings were rated as very important factors for effective team working by GPs, clinical therapists and nurses. A building for co-location of teams was rated as an important factor by nurses and clinical therapists though GPs rated it as less important. Payment to attend meetings and contractual arrangements were considered important factors by GPs but not by nurses or clinical therapists.

Conclusion

PCPs and GPs agree there is limited PCT implementation. GPs are most negative about this implementation. There is some disagreement about which resources are most important for effective PCT working. These findings provide valuable data for clinicians and policy makers about implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0541-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health policy and the policymaking system: A case study of primary care in Ireland

In 2001 the Irish government published a reforming policy intended to modernise and expand the delivery of primary care in Ireland. Fifteen years later, the Irish health system remains beset by problems indicative of a fragmented and underdeveloped primary care system. This case study examines the formation and implementation of the 2001 primary care policy and identifies key risk categories within the policymaking process itself that inhibited the timely achievement of policy objectives. Our methodology includes a directed content analysis of the policy formation and implementation documents and the influencing academic literature, as well as semi-structured interviews with key personnel involved in the process. We identify three broad risk categories - power, resources and capability - within the policymaking process that strongly influenced policy formation and implementation. We additionally show that the disjoint between policy formation and policy implementation was a contested issue among those involved in the policy process and provided space for these risks to critically undermine Ireland's primary care policy.