Dataset Information

Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the Chronic Care Model in a hospital-centered health care system: "the Belgian experience".

ABSTRACT: Most research publications on Chronic Care Model (CCM) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system. Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce. In 2003, the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian healthcare setting, a setting where the organisational framework for chronic care is mainly hospital-centered.Process evaluation of an action research project (2003-2007) guided by the CCM in a well-defined geographical area with 76,826 inhabitants and an estimated number of 2,300 type 2 diabetes patients. In consultation with the region a program for type 2 diabetes patients was developed. The degree of implementation of the CCM in the region was assessed using the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care survey (ACIC). A multimethod approach was used to evaluate the implementation process. The resulting data were triangulated in order to identify the main facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation process.The overall ACIC score improved from 1.45 (limited support) at the start of the study to 5.5 (basic support) at the end of the study. The establishment of a local steering group and the appointment of a program manager were crucial steps in strengthening primary care. The willingness of a group of well-trained and motivated care providers to invest in quality improvement was an important facilitator. Important barriers were the complexity of the intervention, the lack of quality data, inadequate information technology support, the lack of commitment procedures and the uncertainty about sustainable funding.Guided by the CCM, this study highlights the opportunities and the bottlenecks for adapting chronic care delivery in a primary care system with limited structure. The study succeeded in achieving a considerable improvement of the overall support for diabetes patients but further improvement requires a shift towards system thinking among policy makers. Currently primary care providers lack the opportunities to take up full responsibility for chronic care.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824499.

SUBMITTER: Sunaert P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2757022 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the Chronic Care Model in a hospital-centered health care system: "the Belgian experience".

Sunaert Patricia P Bastiaens Hilde H Feyen Luc L Snauwaert Boris B Nobels Frank F Wens Johan J Vermeire Etienne E Van Royen Paul P De Maeseneer Jan J De Sutter An A Willems Sara S

BMC health services research 20090823

<h4>Background</h4>Most research publications on Chronic Care Model (CCM) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system. Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce. In 2003, the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian ...[more]

PMID: 19698185

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveDespite growing interest in individualizing care, routine dialysis processes, including the interdisciplinary plan of care, often fail to account for patient-identified priorities. To better align dialysis care with patient priorities and improve care planning experiences, we implemented a person-centered care plan program at a single clinic. We also sought to gain insight into key implementation considerations and areas for program improvement.Study design6-month quality improvement project with research substudy.Setting & participants49 hemodialysis patients and 14 care team members at a North Carolina dialysis clinic.Quality improvement activitiesImplementation of My Dialysis Plan, a person-centered care plan program.OutcomesParticipant perspectives and care plan meeting characteristics (quality improvement); pre- to postprogram change in patient-reported autonomy support, patient-centeredness of care, and dialysis care individualization (research).Analytical approachWe used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide implementation and evaluation. We conducted pre-, intra-, and post-project interviews with clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and perceptions. We compared pre- and post-project care plan meeting content and patient-reported outcome survey scores.ResultsWe conducted 54 care plans with 49 patients. Overall, care teams successfully used My Dialysis Plan to elicit and link patient priorities to actionable aspects of dialysis care. Participants identified interdisciplinary team commitment, accountability, and the structured yet flexible meeting approach as key implementation elements. Throughout the project, stakeholder input guided program modifications (eg, implementation practices and resources) to better meet clinic needs, but follow-up on care plan-identified action items remained challenging. Among the 28 substudy participants, there was no difference in pre- to post-project patient-reported outcome survey scores.LimitationsSingle clinic implementation.ConclusionsMy Dialysis Plan has the potential to enhance dialysis care individualization and care plan experiences. Evaluation of program impact on patient-reported and clinical outcomes is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Group-based Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPP), aligned with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, promote clinically significant weight loss and reduce cardio-metabolic risks. Studies have examined implementation of the DPP in community settings, but less is known about its integration in healthcare systems. In 2010, a group-based DPP known as the Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB) was implemented within a large healthcare delivery system in Northern California, across three geographically distinct regional administration divisions of the organization within 12 state counties, with varying underlying socio-demographics. The regional divisions implemented the program independently, allowing for natural variation in its real-world integration. We leveraged this natural experiment to qualitatively assess the implementation of a DPP in this healthcare system and, especially, its fidelity to the original GLB curriculum and potential heterogeneity in implementation across clinics and regional divisions. METHODS:Using purposive sampling, we conducted semi-structured interviews with DPP lifestyle coaches. Data were analyzed using mixed-method techniques, guided by an implementation outcomes framework consisting of eight constructs: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. RESULTS:We conducted 33 interviews at 20 clinics across the three regional administrative divisions. Consistencies in implementation of the program were found across regions in terms of satisfaction with the evidence base (acceptability), referral methods (adoption), eligibility criteria (fidelity), and strategies to increase retention and effectiveness (sustainability). Heterogeneity in implementation across regions were found in all categories, including: the number and frequency of sessions (fidelity); program branding (adoption); lifestyle coach training (adoption), and patient-facing cost (cost). Lifestyle coaches expressed differing attitudes about curriculum content (acceptability) and suitability of educational level (appropriateness). While difficulties with recruitment were common across regions (feasibility), strategies used to address these challenges differed (sustainability). CONCLUSIONS:Variation exists in the implementation of the DPP within a large multi-site healthcare system, revealing a dynamic and important tension between retaining fidelity to the original program and tailoring the program to meet the local needs. Moreover, certain challenges across sites may represent opportunities for considering alternative implementation to anticipate these barriers. Further research is needed to explore how differences in implementation domains impact program effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundThe surge of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations in New York City required rapid discharges to maintain hospital capacity.ObjectiveTo determine whether lenient provisional discharge guidelines with remote monitoring after discharge resulted in safe discharges home for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 illness.DesignRetrospective case series SETTING: Tertiary care medical center PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 illness between March 26, 2020, and April 8, 2020, with a subset discharged home INTERVENTIONS: COVID-19 Discharge Care Program consisting of lenient provisional inpatient discharge criteria and option for daily telephone monitoring for up to 14 days after discharge MEASUREMENTS: Fourteen-day emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions RESULTS: Among 812 patients with COVID-19 illness hospitalized during the study time period, 15.5% died prior to discharge, 24.1% remained hospitalized, 10.0% were discharged to another facility, and 50.4% were discharged home. Characteristics of the 409 patients discharged home were mean (SD) age 57.3 (16.6) years; 245 (59.9%) male; 27 (6.6%) with temperature ≥ 100.4 °F; and 154 (37.7%) with oxygen saturation < 95% on day of discharge. Over 14 days of follow-up, 45 patients (11.0%) returned to the ED, of whom 31 patients (7.6%) were readmitted. Compared to patients not referred, patients referred for remote monitoring had fewer ED visits (8.3% vs 14.1%; OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31-1.15, p = 0.12) and readmissions (6.9% vs 8.3%; OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.52-2.52, p = 0.73).LimitationsSingle-center study; assignment to remote monitoring was not randomized.ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 surge in New York City, lenient discharge criteria in conjunction with remote monitoring after discharge were associated with a rate of early readmissions after COVID-related hospitalizations that was comparable to the rate of readmissions after other reasons for hospitalization before the COVID pandemic.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Novel and efficient healthcare approaches are needed to better serve increasingly older chronic disease patients. Many effective integrated chronic disease management strategies have emerged from the primary care sector. However, in many Asian and developing countries, primary care is underdeveloped, and patients prefer secondary-based services. The Integrated Generalist-led Hospital (IGH) care model is a new approach, which may be better suited for chronic disease patients in the local context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A hybrid type I study on the effectiveness and implementation of the IGH care model will be conducted. Implementation evaluation will be informed by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with staff, a staff survey, patient interviews, clinical outcomes and cost data. Clinical outcomes include the length of stay, readmission, emergency room visit rate and mortality. Clinical outcomes will be summarised and compared with a propensity-matched 'usual care' group (derived from the general medicine ward(s) at a separate hospital). The Kaplan-Meier approach will be used to estimate time until death and time until first readmission (both within 30?days of discharge) and time until discharge. Multivariate regression models will be used to investigate the association between the care model and occurrence of readmission, emergency room visit and death, all within 30?days of discharge. Qualitative data will be analysed using a thematic analysis method. Qualitative and quantitative data will also be coded according to the five domains of the CFIR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB 2019/00308). Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. Findings will also be discussed with key stakeholders through local dissemination events.

Dataset Information

Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the Chronic Care Model in a hospital-centered health care system: "the Belgian experience".

Publications

Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the Chronic Care Model in a hospital-centered health care system: "the Belgian experience".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets