Dataset Information

Advancing team-based primary health care: a comparative analysis of policies in western Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We analyzed and compared primary health care (PHC) policies in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan to understand how they inform the design and implementation of team-based primary health care service delivery. The goal was to develop policy imperatives that can advance team-based PHC in Canada.

Methods

We conducted comparative case studies (n = 3). The policy analysis included: Context review: We reviewed relevant information (2007 to 2014) from databases and websites. Policy review and comparative analysis: We compared and contrasted publically available PHC policies. Key informant interviews: Key informants (n = 30) validated narratives prepared from the comparative analysis by offering contextual information on potential policy imperatives. Advisory group and roundtable: An expert advisory group guided this work and a key stakeholder roundtable event guided prioritization of policy imperatives.

Results

The concept of team-based PHC varies widely across and within the three provinces. We noted policy gaps related to team configuration, leadership, scope of practice, role clarity and financing of team-based care; few policies speak explicitly to monitoring and evaluation of team-based PHC. We prioritized four policy imperatives: (1) alignment of goals and policies at different system levels; (2) investment of resources for system change; (3) compensation models for all members of the team; and (4) accountability through collaborative practice metrics.

Conclusions

Policies supporting team-based PHC have been slow to emerge, lacking a systematic and coordinated approach. Greater alignment with specific consideration of financing, reimbursement, implementation mechanisms and performance monitoring could accelerate systemic transformation by removing some well-known barriers to team-based care.

SUBMITTER: Suter E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5512982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPersonal health records (PHR) provide opportunities for improved patient engagement, collection of patient-generated data, and overcome health-system inefficiencies. While PHR use is increasing, uptake in rural populations is lower than in urban areas.ObjectivesThe study aimed to identify priorities for PHR functionality and gain insights into meaning, value, and use of patient-generated data for rural primary care providers.MethodsWe performed PHR preimplementation focus groups with rural providers and their health care teams from five primary care clinics in a sparsely populated mountainous region of British Columbia, Canada to obtain their understanding of PHR functionality, needs, and perceived challenges.ResultsEight general practitioners (GP), five medical office assistants, two nurse practitioners (NP), and two registered nurses (14 females and 3 males) participated in focus groups held at their respective clinics. Providers (GPs, NPs, and RNs) had been practicing for a median of 9.5 (range = 1-38) years and had used an electronic medical record for 7.0 (1-20) years. Participants expressed interest in incorporating functionality around two-way communication and appointment scheduling, previsit data gathering, patient and provider data sharing, virtual care including visits using videoconferencing tools, and postvisit sharing of educational materials. Three further themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) the context in which the providers' practice matters, (2) the need for providing patients and providers with choice (e.g., which data to share, who gets to initiate/respond in communications, and processes around virtual care visits), and (3) perceived risks of system use (e.g., increased complexity for older patients and workload barriers for the health care team).ConclusionRural primary care teams perceived PHR opportunities for increased patient engagement and access to patient-generated data, while worries about changes in workflow were the biggest perceived risk. Recommendations for PHR adoption in a rural primary health network include setting provider-patient expectations about response times, ability to share notes selectively, and automatically augmented note-taking from virtual-care visits.

Project description:Chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, have reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Health systems, especially those in low- and middle-income countries, such as India, struggle to deliver quality chronic care. A reorganization of healthcare service delivery is needed to strengthen care for chronic conditions. In this study, we evaluated the implementation of a package of tailored interventions to reorganize care, which were identified following a detailed analysis of gaps in delivering quality NCD care at the primary care level in India. Interventions included a redesign of the workflow at primary care clinics, a redistribution of tasks, the introduction of patient information records and the involvement of community health workers in the follow-up of patients with NCDs. An experimental case study design was chosen to study the implementation of the quality improvement measures. Three public primary care facilities in rural South India were selected. Qualitative methods were used to gain an in-depth understanding of the implementation process and outcomes of implementation. Observations, field notes and semi-structured interviews with staff at these facilities (n = 15) were thematically analysed to identify contextual factors that influenced implementation. Only one of the primary health centres implemented all components of the intervention by the end of 9 months. The main barriers to implementation were hierarchical arrangements that inhibited team-based care, the amount of time required for counselling and staff transfers. Team cohesion, additional staff and staff motivation seem to have facilitated implementation. This quality improvement research highlights the importance of building relational leadership to enable team-based care at primary care clinics in India. Redesigned organization of care and task redistribution is important solutions to deliver quality chronic care. However, implementing these will require capacity building of local primary care teams.

Project description:ImportanceEmpirical study findings to date are mixed on the association between team-based primary care initiatives and health care use and costs for Medicaid and commercially insured patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of establishing team-based primary care with patient health care use and costs.Design, setting, and participantsWe used difference-in-differences to compare preutilization and postutilization rates between intervention and comparison practices with inverse probability weighting to balance observable differences. We fit a linear model using generalized estimating equations to adjust for clustering at 18 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts, area between 2011 and 2015. The study included 83 953 patients accounting for 138 113 patient-years across 18 intervention practices and 238 455 patients accounting for 401 573 patient-years across 76 comparison practices. Data were analyzed between April and August 2018.ExposuresPractices participated in a 4-year learning collaborative that created and supported team-based primary care.Main outcomes and measuresOutpatient visits, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations, ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits, and total costs of care.ResultsOf 322 408 participants, 176 259 (54.7%) were female; 64 030 (19.9%) were younger than 18 years and 258 378 (80.1%) were age 19 to 64 years. Intervention practices had fewer participants, with 2 or more chronic conditions (n = 51 155 [37.0%] vs n = 186 954 [46.6%]), more participants younger than 18 years (n = 337 931 [27.5%] vs n = 74 691 [18.6%]), higher Medicaid enrollment (n = 39 541 [28.6%] vs n = 81 417 [20.3%]), and similar sex distributions (75 023 women [54.4%] vs 220 097 women [54.8%]); however, after inverse probability weighting, observable patient characteristics were well balanced. Intervention practices had higher utilization in the preperiod. Patients in intervention practices experienced a 7.4% increase in annual outpatient visits relative to baseline (95% CI, 3.5%-11.3%; P < .001) after adjusting for patient age, sex, comorbidity, zip code level sociodemographic characteristics, clinician characteristics, and plan fixed effects. In a subsample of patients with 2 or more chronic conditions, there was a statistically significant 18.6% reduction in hospitalizations (95% CI, 1.5%-33.0%; P = .03), 25.2% reduction in emergency department visits (95% CI, 6.6%-44.0%; P = .007), and a 36.7% reduction in ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits (95% CI, 9.2%-64.0%; P = .009). Among patients with less than 2 comorbidities, there was an increase in outpatient visits (9.2%; 95% CI, 5.10%-13.10%; P < .001), hospitalizations (36.2%; 95% CI, 12.2-566.6; P = .003), and ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations (50.6%; 95% CI, 7.1%-329.2%; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceWhile establishing team-based care was not associated with differences in the full patient sample, there were substantial reductions in utilization among a subset of chronically ill patients. Team-based care practice transformation in primary care settings may be a valuable tool in improving the care of sicker patients, thereby reducing avoidable use; however, it may lead to greater use among healthier patients.

Project description:BackgroundHumanwide was precision health embedded in primary care aiming to leverage high-tech and high-touch medicine to promote wellness, predict and prevent illness, and tailor treatment to individual medical and psychosocial needs.MethodsWe conducted a study assessing implementation outcomes to inform spread and scale, using mixed methods of semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders and chart reviews. Humanwide included: 1) health coaching; 2) four digital health tools for blood-pressure, weight, glucose, and activity; 3) pharmacogenomic testing; and 4) genetic screening/testing. We examined implementation science constructs: reach/penetration, acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability. Chart reviews captured preliminary clinical outcomes.ResultsFifty of 69 patients (72%) invited by primary care providers participated in the Humanwide pilot. We performed chart reviews for the 50 participating patients. Participants were diverse overall (50% non-white, 66% female). Over half of the participants were obese and 58% had one or more major cardiovascular risk factor: dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes. Reach/penetration of Humanwide components varied: pharmacogenomics testing 94%, health coaching 80%, genetic testing 72%, and digital health 64%. Interview participants (n=27) included patients (n=16), providers (n=9), and the 2 staff who were allocated dedicated time for Humanwide patient intake and orientation. Patients and providers reported Humanwide was acceptable; it engaged patients holistically, supported faster medication titration, and strengthened patient-provider relationships. All patients benefited clinically from at least one Humanwide component. Feasibility challenges included: low provider self-efficacy for interpreting genetics and pharmacogenomics; difficulties with data integration; patient technology challenges; and additional staffing needs. Patient financial burden concerns surfaced with respect to sustainability.ConclusionThis is the first report of implementation of a multi-component precision health model embedded in team-based primary care. We found acceptance from both patients and providers; however, feasibility barriers must be overcome to enable broad spread and sustainability. We found that barriers to implementation of precision health in a team-based primary care clinic are mundane and straightforward, though not necessarily easy to overcome. Future implementation endeavors should invest in basics: education, workflow, and reflection/evaluation. Strengthening fundamentals will enable healthcare systems to more nimbly accept the responsibility of meeting patients at the crossroads of innovative science and routinized clinical systems.

Project description:The objective of Heart Health NOW (HHN) is to determine if primary care practice support-a comprehensive evidence-based quality improvement strategy involving practice facilitation, academic detailing, technology support, and regional learning collaboratives-accelerates widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in small- to medium-sized primary care practices and, additionally, increases practices' capacity to incorporate other evidence-based clinical guidelines in the future.HHN is a stepped wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice support on evidence-based CVD prevention, organizational change process measures, and patient outcomes. Each practice will start the trial as a control, receive the intervention at a randomized time point, and then enter a maintenance period 12 months after the start of the intervention. The intervention will be randomized to practices in one of four strata defined by region of the state (east or west) and degree of practice readiness for change. Seventy-five practices in each region with a high degree of readiness will be randomized 1:1:1 in blocks of 3 sometime prior to month 8 to receive the intervention at month 9, 11, or 12. An additional 75 practices within each region that have a low degree of readiness or are recruited later will be randomized 1:1 in blocks of 2 prior to month 13 to receive the intervention at month 14 or 16. The sites will be ordered within each strata based on time of enrollment with the blocking based on this ordering. Evaluation will examine the effect of primary care practice support on (1) practice-level delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, (2) patient-level health outcomes, (3) practice-level implementation of clinical and organizational changes that support delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, and (4) practice-level capacity to implement future evidence-based clinical guidelines.Results will indicate whether primary care practice support is an effective strategy for widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines in primary care practices. Discernible reductions in cardiovascular risk in 300 practices covering over an estimated 900,000 adult patients would likely lead to prevention of thousands of cardiovascular events within 10 years.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585557.