Dataset Information

Contrasting Perspectives of Practice Leaders and Practice Facilitators May Be Common in Quality Improvement Initiatives.

ABSTRACT: Practice facilitation is an approach for advancing quality improvement (QI), but its success depends on effective relationships and communication among participants. Our goal was to identify patterns of contrasting perspectives on implementation issues between practice leaders and their practice facilitators, and factors that may contribute to them. We conducted individual interviews with practice leaders and the practice facilitators assigned to them as part of a program focused on preventive cardiology within primary care practices. We used summative content analysis to quantify the incidence of contrasting perspectives, and bivariate and qualitative analyses to explore relationships between contrasting perspectives and contextual factors. Among the 16 dyads, contrasting perspectives commonly related to the easiest or hardest QI interventions to implement (8 of 16 dyads) and the practice's success implementing interventions (5 of 16 dyads). There was a nonsignificant, inverse correlation (r = -0.19, p = .47) between the number of in-person QI visits from the facilitator and the total number of contrasting perspectives. Turnover of staff was frequently reported in dyads with contrasting perspectives. Although the impact of contrasting perspectives warrants additional study, planners of QI initiatives using practice facilitation should consider taking steps to minimize contrasting perspectives, or the potential adverse consequences of them, by addressing turnover challenges and encouraging opportunities to share perspectives.

SUBMITTER: McHugh M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9899069 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Contrasting Perspectives of Practice Leaders and Practice Facilitators May Be Common in Quality Improvement Initiatives.

McHugh Megan M Brown Tiffany T Walunas Theresa L TL Liss David T DT Persell Stephen D SD

Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality 20200501 3

Practice facilitation is an approach for advancing quality improvement (QI), but its success depends on effective relationships and communication among participants. Our goal was to identify patterns of contrasting perspectives on implementation issues between practice leaders and their practice facilitators, and factors that may contribute to them. We conducted individual interviews with practice leaders and the practice facilitators assigned to them as part of a program focused on preventive c ...[more]

PMID: 31634207

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.Methods680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB.Results390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified.ConclusionsAlthough these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.

Project description:Abstract Introduction Many healthcare delivery systems have developed clinician‐led quality improvement (QI) initiatives but fewer have also developed in‐house evaluation units. Engagement between the two entities creates unique opportunities. Stanford Medicine funded a collaboration between their Improvement Capability Development Program (ICDP), which coordinates and incentivizes clinician‐led QI efforts, and the Evaluation Sciences Unit (ESU), a multidisciplinary group of embedded researchers with expertise in implementation and evaluation sciences. Aim To describe the ICDP‐ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021. Methods Department‐level physician and operational QI leaders were offered an ESU consultation to workshop design, methods, and overall scope of their annual QI projects. A steering committee of high‐level stakeholders from operational, clinical, and research perspectives subsequently selected three projects for in‐depth partnered evaluation with the ESU based on evaluability, importance to the health system, and broader relevance. Selected project teams met regularly with the ESU to develop mixed methods evaluations informed by relevant implementation science frameworks, while aligning the evaluation approach with the clinical teams' QI goals. Results Sixty and 62 ICDP projects were initiated during the 2 cycles, respectively, across 18 departments, of which ESU consulted with 15 (83%). Within each annual cycle, evaluators made actionable, summative findings rapidly available to partners to inform ongoing improvement. Other reported benefits of the partnership included rapid adaptation to COVID‐19 needs, expanded clinician evaluation skills, external knowledge dissemination through scholarship, and health system‐wide knowledge exchange. Ongoing considerations for improving the collaboration included the need for multi‐year support to enable nimble response to dynamic health system needs and timely data access. Conclusion Presence of embedded evaluation partners in the enterprise‐wide QI program supported identification of analogous endeavors (eg, telemedicine adoption) and cross‐cutting lessons across QI efforts, clinician capacity building, and knowledge dissemination through scholarship.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care was designed to assist primary care practices in the US in implementing evidence-based practices in cardiovascular care and building capacity for quality improvement. EvidenceNOW, NCT03054090, was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017. The goals of this study were to gain a comprehensive understanding of perspectives from research participants and research team members on the value of implementation strategies and factors that influenced the EvidenceNOW initiative in Virginia.MethodsIn 2018, we conducted 25 focus groups with clinicians and staff at participating practices, including 80 physicians, advanced practice clinicians, practice managers and other practice staff. We also conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with 22 research team members, including lead investigators, practice facilitators, physician expert consultants, and evaluators. We used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in the Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework in our qualitative data analysis and organization of themes.ResultsImplementation strategies valued by both practice representatives and research team members included the kick-off event, on-site practice facilitation, and interaction with physician expert consultants. Remote practice facilitation and web-based tools were used less frequently. Contextual factors that influence quality improvement efforts include leadership support, access to resources, previous quality improvement experience, and practice ownership type (independent compared to health system owned). Many clinicians and staff were overwhelmed by day-to-day activities and experience initiative fatigue, which hindered their ability to fully participate in the EvidenceNOW initiative.ConclusionsThis study provides details on how the practice environment plays an essential role in the implementation of evidence-based practices in primary care. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices should consider the context and environment of individual practices, with targeted implementation strategies to meet the needs of independent and health system owned practices. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices require strategies to address initiative fatigue among clinicians and practice staff. External support for building capacity for quality improvement could help primary care practices implement and sustain evidence-based practices and improve quality of care.Trial registrationThis project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017 and the identifier is NCT03054090.

Dataset Information

Contrasting Perspectives of Practice Leaders and Practice Facilitators May Be Common in Quality Improvement Initiatives.

Publications

Contrasting Perspectives of Practice Leaders and Practice Facilitators May Be Common in Quality Improvement Initiatives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets