Carmel M. Martin

Pharmacist's identity development within multidisciplinary primary health care teams in Ontario; qualitative results from the IMPACT (†) project

BACKGROUNDnMultidisciplinary team development generates changes in roles, responsibilities, and identities of individual health care providers. The Integrating Family Medicine and Pharmacy to Advance Primary Care Therapeutics (IMPACT) project introduced pharmacists into family practice teams across Ontario, Canada, to provide medication assessments, drug information, and academic detailing and to develop office system enhancements to improve drug therapy.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo analyze pharmacists narrative accounts during early integration to study identity development within emerging team-based care.nnnMETHODnQualitative design using 63 pharmacist narrative reports of pharmacists experiences over a 9-month integration period. Four independent researchers with varied professional backgrounds used immersion and crystallization to identify codes and iterative grounded theory to determine and debate process and content themes relevant to identity development.nnnRESULTSnThe pharmacists narratives spoke of the daily experiences of integrating into a family practice setting: feeling valued and contributing concretely to patient care; feeling underutilized; feeling like a nuisance, or feeling as though working too slowly. Pharmacist mentors helped deal with uncertainty and complexity of care. Pharmacists perceived that complementary clinical contributions enhanced their status with physicians and motivated pharmacists to take on new responsibilities. Changes in perspective, clinic-relevant skill development, and a new sense of professionalism signaled an emerging pharmacist family practice identity.nnnCONCLUSIONnPharmacists found that the integration into team-based primary health care provided both challenges and fresh opportunities. Pharmacists professional identities evolved in relation to valued role models, emerging practice-level opportunities, and their patient-related contributions.

Complexity and health – yesterday's traditions, tomorrow's future

‘If it is complex it means we don’t really understand it,and the way forward is to break the problem down into its partsto make sense of it’. This thought reflects the way we havebeen taught, and the way we largely practise in clinical care everyday.But are we really functioning on this basis? Or is it the only waywe know how to live? We all experience situations every daywhere the evidence does not really fit our understanding of aproblem – the familiar reductionist approach limits our ability tofully explore new problems and to gain new insight. An increas-ingly persistent question has emerged in relation to what consti-tutes the knowledge we need for effective and efficient clinicalcare, an issue taken up by this new

Complex adaptive chronic care

BACKGROUNDnThe Chronic Care Model (CCM) is widely taken up as the universal operational framework for redesigning health systems to address the increasing chronic disease burden of an ageing population. Chronic care encompasses health promotion, prevention, self management, disease control, treatment and palliation to address chronicity of long journeys through disease, illness and care in the varying contexts of complex health systems. Yet at an operational level, CCM activities are predominantly based on an evidence-base of discreet chronic disease interventions in specific settings; and their demonstrable impact is limited to processes of select disease management such as diabetes in specific disease management programs.nnnAIMSnThis paper proposes a framework that makes sense of the nature of chronicity and its multiple dimensions beyond disease and argues for a set of building blocks and leverage points that should constitute the starting points for redesign?nnnFINDINGSnComplex Adaptive Chronic Care is proposed as an idea for an explanatory and implementation framework for addressing chronicity in existing and future chronic care models. Chronicity is overtly conceptualized to encompass the phenomena of an individual journey, with simple and complicated, complex and chaotic phases, through long term asymptomatic disease to bodily dysfunction and illness, located in family and communities. Chronicity encompasses trajectories of self-care and health care, as health, illness and disease co-exist and co-evolve in the setting of primary care, local care networks and at times institutions. A systems approach to individuals in their multi-layered networks making sense of and optimizing experiences of their chronic illness would build on core values and agency around a local vision of health, empowerment of individuals and adaptive leadership, and it responds in line with the local values inherent in the communitys disease-based knowledge and the local services history and dynamics. Complex Adaptive Chronic Care exceeds the current notions of disease management as an endpoint. Primary care team members are system adaptors in partnership with individuals constructing their care and system leadership in response to chronic illness, and enable healthy resilience as well as personal healing and support. Outcomes of complex adaptive chronic care are the emergence of health in individuals and communities through adaptability, self-organization and empowerment.nnnDISCUSSIONnChronic care reform from within a complex adaptive system framework is bottom up and emergent and stands in stark contrast to (but has to co-exist with) the prevailing protocol based disease care rewarding selective surrogate indicators of disease control. Frameworks such as the Chronic Care Model provide guidance, but do not replace individual experience, local adaptive leadership and responsiveness. The awareness of complexity means opening up problems to a different reality demanding different set of questions and approaches to answer them.

The social construction of chronicity – a key to understanding chronic care transformations

PURPOSEnThe purpose of this paper is to argue the importance of contemporary analysis of the modern social construction of chronicity--encapsulating the world views of the chronically ill, and the medical and health system constructions of chronic disease, through the nature of care for chronic conditions. It is argued that chronic diseases are themselves, socially constructed, despite widely accepted disease classification systems. Thus, there is a need to examine how different ideas have permeated our clinical and health system developments and their social context and vice versa.nnnMETHODSnWe examine historical ideas, theory and evidence about the tensions in social construction of chronic illness by those afflicted and the responses of society, the medical and health professions and increasingly the public and private institutions that shape health care. This is with the background of major differences in the two cultures that create knowledge: those based upon argument and intellectual logic--hermeneutic, and those based upon objectivist empirical science, often called heuristic. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the flagship of disease management, increasingly narrative-based medicine and other similar genres are becoming the pragmatic face of social constructions, yet sit in juxtaposition without synthesis. A third culture has emerged of scientific intellectuals who straddle these cultures and in health care their public face is mixed methods.nnnFINDINGSnRecent cases of modern ideas about improving chronic care were reviewed. We found that despite developments of social theory, the world view of the chronically ill exerts small influence in health system redesign, apparently dominated by chronic disease models. Confusion remains within health system reforms as to the social construction of chronicity--chronic disease, chronic condition or chronic illness and chronic care transformations. The role of Primary Care remains ambiguous straddling disease and illness. Radical redesign of health systems is taking place without an understanding and discourse about the nature of their construction. Ad hoc eclectism with unquestioning adoption of the dominant EBM paradigm is driving a new health culture based on disease-based performance incentives, which is intrusive beyond the medical model and pays little attention to narratives of illness and even less to the whole social reconstruction of illness and wellness.nnnCONCLUSIONSnHealth care systems cannot afford to avoid, and should actively embrace the critiques of social theory and analyses in the transformations of health systems to improve chronic care. Creative tensions between empirical and intellectual critique, and a synthetic middle ground are likely to lead to more realistic and innovative approaches spanning the nature of chronicity and the transformation of Primary Care.

Care for chronic illness in Australian general practice – focus groups of chronic disease self-help groups over 10 years: implications for chronic care systems reforms

BackgroundChronic disease is a major global challenge. However, chronic illness and its care, when intruding into everyday life, has received less attention in Asia Pacific countries, including Australia, who are in the process of transitioning to chronic disease orientated health systems.AimThe study aims to examine experiences of chronic illness before and after the introduction of Australian Medicare incentives for longer consultations and structured health assessments in general practice.MethodsSelf-help groups around the conditions of diabetes, epilepsy, asthma and cancer identified key informants to participate in 4 disease specific focus groups. Audio taped transcripts of the focus groups were coded using grounded theory methodology. Key themes and lesser themes identified using a process of saturation until the study questions on needs and experiences of care were addressed. Thematic comparisons were made across the 2002/3 and 1992/3 focus groups.FindingsAt times of chronic illness, there was need to find and then ensure access to the right GP. The right GP or specialist committed to an in-depth relationship of trust, personal rapport and understanding together with clinical and therapeutic competence. The right GP, the main specialist, the community nurse and the pharmacist were key providers, whose success depended on interprofessional communication. The need to trust and rely on care providers was balanced by the need for self-efficacy to be in control of disease and treatment and to be your own case manager. Changes in Medicare appeared to have little penetration into everyday perceptions of chronic illness burden or time and quality of GP care. Inequity of health system support for different disease groupings emerged. Diabetes, asthma and certain cancers, like breast cancer, had greater support, despite common experiences of disease burden, and a need for research and support programs.ConclusionCore themes around chronic illness experience and care needs remained consistent over the 10 year period. Reforms did not appear to alleviate the burden of chronic illness across disease groups, yet some were more privileged than others. Thus in the future, chronic care reforms should build from greater understanding of the needs of people with chronic illness.

Health at the Center of Health Systems Reform: How Philosophy Can Inform Policy

Contemporary views hold that health and disease can be defined as objective states and thus should determine the design and delivery of health services. Yet health concepts are elusive and contestable. Health is neither an individual construction, a reflection of societal expectations, nor only the absence of pathologies. Based on philosophical and sociological theory, empirical evidence, and clinical experience, we argue that health has simultaneously objective and subjective features that converge into a dynamic complex-adaptive health model. Health (or its dysfunction, illness) is a dynamic state representing complex patterns of adaptation to body, mind, social, and environmental challenges, resulting in bodily homeostasis and personal internal coherence. The “balance of health” model—emergent, self-organizing, dynamic, and adaptive—underpins the very essence of medicine. This model should be the foundation for health systems design and also should inform therapeutic approaches, policy decision-making, and the development of emerging health service models. A complex adaptive health system focused on achieving the best possible “personal” health outcomes must provide the broad policy frameworks and resources required to implement people-centered health care. People-centered health systems are emergent in nature, resulting in locally different but mutually compatible solutions across the whole health system.

User-driven health care: answering multidimensional information needs in individual patients utilizing post-EBM approaches: an operational model

The hypothesis in the conceptual model was that a user-driven innovation in presently available information and communication technology infrastructure would be able to meet patient and health professional users information needs and help them attain better health outcomes. An operational model was created to plan a trial on a sample diabetic population utilizing a randomized control trial design, assigning one randomly selected group of diabetics to receive electronic information intervention and analyse if it would improve their health outcomes in comparison with a matched diabetic population who would only receive regular medical intervention. Diabetes was chosen for this particular trial, as it is a major chronic illness in Malaysia as elsewhere in the world. It is in essence a position paper for how the study concept should be organized to stimulate wider discussion prior to beginning the study.

Perturbing ongoing conversations about systems and complexity in health services and systems

The term ‘unintended consequences’ [1] has become ubiquitous [2] in health policy and delivery circles. We argue that this is a sign of the growing unease arising from the realization of the limitations of the still dominant reductionist research approaches, ‘evidence’ and linear thinking in relation to health system and health services policy redesigning. Complexity theorists argue that many of the problems of health services and systems will not be solved through the application of more reductionism [3]. The most revered tool in reductionist research is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). However, as Cartwright has pointed out RCTs have very significant limitations for real world problems. ‘The claims of . . . RCTs to be the gold standard rest on the fact that the ideal RCT is a deductive method: if the assumptions of the test are met, a positive result implies the appropriate causal conclusion. . . . the benefit that the RCT conclusions follow deductively in the ideal case comes with a great cost: narrowness of scope. . . . (in order) to draw causal inferences about a target population, which method is best depends case-by-case on what background knowledge we have or can come to obtain’ [4]. Health services researchers, decision makers and practitioners are now faced with at least two challenges: how to respond to the limitations of current research and decision-making models that have taken us ‘just so far’; and how to integrate other sources of evidence into policy and practice in the real world [5]. What matters is making sense of what is relevant, i.e. how a particular intervention works in the dynamics of particular settings and contexts. It is not very useful to change a system based on deductive, in Cartwright’s words – average explanations. As Stengers [3] pointed out – the most useful questions addressing complex problems must imply an open situation: ‘What will the intervention be able to produce?’ and ‘What kind of behaviour will emerge? What are our frames of reference? What are our ideas and values in relation to success?’ In relation to policy development Glouberman, an applied philosopher adds: ‘Frameworks for understanding policy development do not merely describe the process. They invariably indicate what a “well-functioning” process is like. And so they place a value on certain structures and behaviour. As our theories change, so do our views of what is good’ [6]. Responses to the challenges to our contemporary frameworks are many and varied. They include the rise of translational research [7], narrative evidence-based medicine [8], the quest for utility in patient-reported outcome measures, together with new statements about trials and multifaceted interventions [9–12]. Acknowledging these challenges is not only a sign of understanding the crisis of scientific knowledge [13], but also evidence that new conversations have started [7,14,15]. Common to complex systems are two fundamental themes – the universal interconnectedness and interdependence of all phenomena, and the intrinsically dynamic nature of reality [16]. ‘At each level of complexity we encounter systems that are integrated, self-organizing wholes consisting of smaller parts and, at the same time, acting as parts of larger wholes’ [17]. Notable international examples of an emerging and evolving discourse about complex systems in health services research and quality improvement include the Institute of Medicine’s report ‘Crossing the Quality Chasm’ [18] with a resultant series of US quality initiatives, and Glouberman and Zimmerman’s report to the Romanow Commission in Canada [19]. Approaches to 1 A health system incorporates health services and broad social systems that influence human wellbeing and survival. 2 Health services are specific entities responsible for conducting activities to directly improve health. Examples include a doctor’s office, cancer care centres, emergency departments. Health services are subsystems of a broader health system. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice ISSN 1356-1294

W(h)ither complexity? The emperor's new toolkit? Or elucidating the evolution of health systems knowledge?

Rationaleu2002 The outputs from vastly expanding health research and knowledge industry with a broadening range of approaches to the synthesis of knowledge provide an impetus to develop complex science and theory-informed knowledge management in health care. n n n nAimsu2002 To stimulate debate in order to assist health care decision makers to move beyond framing certainty and evidence in purely reductionist terms. n n n nObjectivesu2002 To locate health, health care and health knowledge systems research using a complex adaptive systems theory framework. n n n nMethodsu2002 An conceptual analysis of pervading methodologies and ways of knowing in health systems research to elucidate a framework in order to inform health care decision making. n n n nFindingsu2002 A living Tree of (Research) Knowledge is proposed, with theoretic and operational frameworks. Branches of the tree are linked to differing evolutionary and developmental processes in order to assist researchers in the ongoing self-organizing of taxonomies, multiple methods and types of knowledge, recognizing the ‘lived’, developing and adaptive nature of our understandings. n n n nConclusionsu2002 It is challenging to determine whither the directions ‘knowledge’ creation and management should take in complex health systems, beyond a total reliance on reductionism. Yet quality will wither, if knowledge does not pertain to real world contexts.RATIONALEnThe outputs from vastly expanding health research and knowledge industry with a broadening range of approaches to the synthesis of knowledge provide an impetus to develop complex science and theory-informed knowledge management in health care. Aims To stimulate debate in order to assist health care decision makers to move beyond framing certainty and evidence in purely reductionist terms.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo locate health, health care and health knowledge systems research using a complex adaptive systems theory framework. Methods An conceptual analysis of pervading methodologies and ways of knowing in health systems research to elucidate a framework in order to inform health care decision making.nnnFINDINGSnA living Tree of (Research) Knowledge is proposed, with theoretic and operational frameworks. Branches of the tree are linked to differing evolutionary and developmental processes in order to assist researchers in the ongoing self-organizing of taxonomies, multiple methods and types of knowledge, recognizing the lived, developing and adaptive nature of our understandings.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIt is challenging to determine whither the directions knowledge creation and management should take in complex health systems, beyond a total reliance on reductionism. Yet quality will wither, if knowledge does not pertain to real world contexts.

Developing a tool to measure contributions to medication-related processes in family practice.

Successful team care requires a shared understanding of roles and expertise. This paper describes the development and preliminary exploration of the psychometric properties of a tool designed to measure contributions to family practice medication-related processes. Our team identified medication-related processes commonly occurring in family practice. We assessed clinical appropriateness using a sensibility questionnaire and pilot-tested with 11 pharmacists, nurses and physicians. We performed a simulated exercise to group the processes and assessed the internal consistency of the groupings using Cronbachs alpha coefficient. We examined test-retest reliability using intra-class coefficient (ICC). Following three revisions, the final Medication Use Processes Matrix (MUPM) included 22 medication-related processes and scale descriptors reflecting contribution to each process. Mean sensibility ratings were high for each component. We developed five theoretical groupings (diagnosis & prescribing, monitoring, administrative/documentation, education, medication review) and found their overall internal consistency was good (α > 0.80). The test-retest reliability was strong (ICC > 0.80). Preliminary validation showed significant differences in how health professionals view interprofessional contributions toward medication-related processes. Interprofessional care requires a negotiated understanding of processes and contributions. The MUPM provides an explicit description of medication-related processes in primary care, measures perceived contributions and emerges as a new tool to measure collaborative care in family practices.