Dataset Information

Lessons learned on the experienced facilitators and barriers of implementing a tailored VBHC model in a Dutch university hospital from a perspective of physicians and nurses.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aims to obtain insight into experienced facilitators and barriers of implementing a tailored value-based healthcare (VBHC) model in a Dutch university hospital from a perspective of physicians and nurses.

Method

A descriptive qualitative study with 12 physicians, nurses and managers of seven different care pathways who were involved in the implementation of a tailored VBHC methodology was conducted. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data guided by all factors of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Findings

The method designed for the implementation of a tailored VBHC methodology was appointed as a structured guide for the process. Throughout the implementation process, leadership and team dynamics were considered as important for the implementation to succeed. Also, sharing experiences with other value teams and the cooperation with external Information Technology (IT) teams in the hospital was mentioned as desirable. The involvement of patients, that is part of the VBHC methodology, was considered useful in the decision-making and improvement of the care process because it gave better insights in topics that are important for patients. The time-consuming nature of the implementation process was named as barrier to the VBHC methodology. On top of that, the shaping of the involvement of patients and the ongoing changes in departments were established as difficult. Finally, working with the Electronic Health Records and acquiring the necessary digital skills were considered to be often forgotten and, thus, hindering implementation.

Conclusion

Clinical Healthcare organisations implementing a tailored VBHC methodology will benefit from the use of a structured implementation methodology, a well-led strong team and cooperation with (external) teams and patients. However, shaping patient involvement, alignment with other departments and attention to digitisation were seen as a most important concerns in implementation and require further attention.

SUBMITTER: Lansdaal D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8728449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus is preventable through lifestyle intervention. Diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) aim to deliver prevention-based behaviour change interventions to reduce incidence. Such programmes vary from usual primary care in terms of where, how, and by whom they are delivered. Implementation is therefore likely to face new commissioning, incentive and delivery challenges. We report on the implementation of a national DPP in NHS England, and identify lessons learned in addressing the implementation challenges.MethodsIn 2017/18, we conducted 20 semi-structured telephone interviews covering 16 sampled case sites with the designated lead(s) responsible for local implementation of the programme. Interviews explored the process of implementation, including organisation of the programme, expectations and attitudes to the programme, funding, target populations and referral and clinical pathways. We drew on constant comparative methods to analyse the data and generate over-arching themes. We complemented our qualitative data with a survey focused on variation in the financial incentives used across sites to ensure usual primary care services recruited patients to new providers.ResultsWe identified five over-arching areas of learning for implementing this large-scale programme: 1) managing new providers; 2) promoting awareness of services; 3) recruiting patients; 4) incentive payments; and 5) mechanisms for sharing learning. In general, tensions appeared to be caused by a lack of clear roles/responsibilities between hierarchical actors, and lack of communication. Both local sites and the national NHS coordination team gained experience through learning by doing. Initial tensions with roles and expectations have been worked out during implementation.ConclusionsImplementing a national disease prevention programme is a major task, and one that will be increasingly faced by health systems globally as they aim to adjust to demand pressures. We provide practical learning opportunities for the wider uptake and sustainability of prevention programmes. Future implementers might wish to define clear responsibilities for each actor prior to implementation, ensure early engagement with new providers, offer mechanisms/forums for sharing learning, generate evidence and provide advice on incentive payments, and prioritise public and professional awareness of the programme.

Project description:BackgroundDrug overdose has become a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Between 2000 and 2015, the rate of deaths from drug overdoses increased 137%, including a 200% increase in the rate of overdose deaths involving opioids (including opioid pain relievers and heroin). Unnecessary opioid prescribing is one of the factors driving this epidemic.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this paper is to share lessons learned while conducting a randomized trial to de-implement opioids for post-extraction pain management utilizing clinical decision support (CDS) with and without patient education. The lessons learned from conducting this trial in a real-world setting can be applied to future dissemination and implementation oral health research.MethodsThe sources informing lessons learned were generated from qualitative interviews conducted with 20 of the forty-nine dental providers involved in the study following the implementation phase of the trial. Ongoing policy, social and environmental factors were tracked throughout the study.ResultsDental providers in the trial identified the impact of training that involved health professionals sharing information about the personal impact of pain and opioid use. Additionally, they found utility in being presented with a dashboard detailing their prescribing patterns related to other dentists. For the 30 general dentists with access to the CDS, use of its portal varied widely, with most using it 10%-49% of the time related to extractions.ConclusionsIn the context of a downward trend in opioid prescribing and considering the influence of the COVID pandemic during the trial, dental providers indicated benefit in training about negative personal impacts of prescribing opioids, and personally relevant feedback about their prescribing patterns. Only modest use of the CDS was realized. Implementation of this trial was impacted by governmental and health system policies and the COVID pandemic, prompt the consideration of implications regarding continuing ways to limit opioid prescribing among dental providers.