RCGP Quality Team Development programme: an illuminative evaluation

Challenges in Implementing Community-Based Healthcare Teams in a Low-Income Country Context: Lessons From Ethiopia's Family Health Teams

BACKGROUND

Addressing chronic diseases and intra-urban health disparities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires new health service models. Team-based healthcare models can improve management of chronic diseases/complex conditions. There is interest in integrating community health workers (CHWs) into these teams, given their effectiveness in reaching underserved populations. However healthcare team models are difficult to effectively implement, and there is little experience with team-based models in LMICs and with CHW-integrated models more generally. Our study aims to understand the determinants related to the poor adoption of Ethiopia's family health teams (FHTs); and, raise considerations for initiating CHW-integrated healthcare team models in LMIC cities.

METHODS

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we examine organizational-level factors related to implementation climate and readiness (work processes/incentives/resources/leadership) and system-level factors (policy guidelines/governance/financing) that affected adoption of FHTs in two Ethiopian cities. Using semi-structured interviews/focus groups, we sought implementation perspectives from 33 FHT members and 18 administrators. We used framework analysis to deductively code data to CFIR domains.

RESULTS

Factors associated with implementation climate and readiness negatively impacted FHT adoption. Failure to tap into financial, political, and performance motivations of key stakeholders/FHT members contributed to low willingness to participate, while resource constraints restricted capacity to implement. Workload issues combined with no financial incentives/perceived benefit contributed to poor adoption among clinical professionals. Meanwhile, staffing constraints and unavailability of medicines/supplies/transport contributed to poor implementation readiness, further decreasing willingness among clinical professionals/managers to prioritize non-clinic based activities. The federally-driven program failed to provide budgetary incentives or tap into political motivations of municipal/health centre administrators.

CONCLUSION

Lessons from Ethiopia's challenges in implementing its FHT program suggest that LMICs interested in adopting CHW-integrated healthcare team models should closely consider health system readiness (budgets, staffing, equipment/medicines) as well as incentivization strategies (financial, professional, political) to drive organizational change.

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.

Can the theoretical domains framework account for the implementation of clinical quality interventions?

BACKGROUND

The health care quality improvement movement is a complex enterprise. Implementing clinical quality initiatives requires attitude and behaviour change on the part of clinicians, but this has proven to be difficult. In an attempt to solve this kind of behavioural challenge, the theoretical domains framework (TDF) has been developed. The TDF consists of 14 domains from psychological and organisational theory said to influence behaviour change. No systematic research has been conducted into the ways in which clinical quality initiatives map on to the domains of the framework. We therefore conducted a qualitative mapping experiment to determine to what extent, and in what ways, the TDF is relevant to the implementation of clinical quality interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature exploring clinicians' perceptions of various clinical quality interventions. We analysed and synthesised 50 studies in total, in five domains of clinical quality interventions: clinical quality interventions in general, structural interventions, audit-type interventions, interventions aimed at making practice more evidence-based, and risk management interventions. Data were analysed thematically, followed by synthesis of these themes into categories and concepts, which were then mapped to the domains of the TDF.

RESULTS

Our results suggest that the TDF is highly relevant to the implementation of clinical quality interventions. It can be used to map most, if not all, of the attitudinal and behavioural barriers and facilitators of uptake of clinical quality interventions. Each of these 14 domains appeared to be relevant to many different types of clinical quality interventions. One possible additional domain might relate to perceived trustworthiness of those instituting clinical quality interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The TDF can be usefully applied to a wide range of clinical quality interventions. Because all 14 of the domains emerged as relevant, and we did not identify any obvious differences between different kinds of clinical quality interventions, our findings support an initially broad approach to identifying barriers and facilitators, followed by a "drilling down" to what is most contextually salient. In future, it may be possible to establish a model of clinical quality policy implementation using the TDF.

Implementing change in primary care practices using electronic medical records: a conceptual framework

Background

Implementing change in primary care is difficult, and little practical guidance is available to assist small primary care practices. Methods to structure care and develop new roles are often needed to implement an evidence-based practice that improves care. This study explored the process of change used to implement clinical guidelines for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care practices that used a common electronic medical record (EMR).

Methods

Multiple conceptual frameworks informed the design of this study designed to explain the complex phenomena of implementing change in primary care practice. Qualitative methods were used to examine the processes of change that practice members used to implement the guidelines. Purposive sampling in eight primary care practices within the Practice Partner Research Network-Translating Researching into Practice (PPRNet-TRIP II) clinical trial yielded 28 staff members and clinicians who were interviewed regarding how change in practice occurred while implementing clinical guidelines for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and strokes.

Results

A conceptual framework for implementing clinical guidelines into primary care practice was developed through this research. Seven concepts and their relationships were modelled within this framework: leaders setting a vision with clear goals for staff to embrace; involving the team to enable the goals and vision for the practice to be achieved; enhancing communication systems to reinforce goals for patient care; developing the team to enable the staff to contribute toward practice improvement; taking small steps, encouraging practices' tests of small changes in practice; assimilating the electronic medical record to maximize clinical effectiveness, enhancing practices' use of the electronic tool they have invested in for patient care improvement; and providing feedback within a culture of improvement, leading to an iterative cycle of goal setting by leaders.

Conclusion

This conceptual framework provides a mental model which can serve as a guide for practice leaders implementing clinical guidelines in primary care practice using electronic medical records. Using the concepts as implementation and evaluation criteria, program developers and teams can stimulate improvements in their practice settings. Investing in collaborative team development of clinicians and staff may enable the practice environment to be more adaptive to change and improvement.