Marije Bosch

Planning and Studying Improvement in Patient Care: The Use of Theoretical Perspectives

A consistent finding in articles on quality improvement in health care is that change is difficult to achieve. According to the research literature, the majority of interventions are targeted at health care professionals. But success in achieving change may be influenced by factors other than those relating to individual professionals, and theories may help explain whether change is possible. This article argues for a more systematic use of theories in planning and evaluating quality-improvement interventions in clinical practice. It demonstrates how different theories can be used to generate testable hypotheses regarding factors that influence the implementation of change, and it shows how different theoretical assumptions lead to different quality-improvement strategies.

Public reporting in health care: how do consumers use quality-of-care information? A systematic review.

Background:One of the underlying goals of public reporting is to encourage the consumer to select health care providers or health plans that offer comparatively better quality-of-care. Objective:To review the weight consumers give to quality-of-care information in the process of choice, to summarize the effect of presentation formats, and to examine the impact of quality information on consumers’ choice behavior. The evidence is organized in a theoretical consumer choice model. Data Sources:English language literature was searched in PubMed, the Cochrane Clinical Trial, and the EPOC Databases (January 1990–January 2008). Study Selection:Study selection was limited to randomized controlled trails, controlled before-after trials or interrupted time series. Included interventions focused on choice behavior of consumers in health care settings. Outcome measures referred to one of the steps in a consumer choice model. The quality of the study design was rated, and studies with low quality ratings were excluded. Results:All 14 included studies examine quality information, usually CAHPS, with respect to its impact on the consumers choice of health plans. Easy-to-read presentation formats and explanatory messages improve knowledge about and attitude towards the use of quality information; however, the weight given to quality information depends on other features, including free provider choice and costs. In real-world settings, having seen quality information is a strong determinant for choosing higher quality-rated health plans. Conclusions:This review contributes to an understanding of consumer choice behavior in health care settings. The small number of included studies limits the strength of our conclusions.

Developing and selecting interventions for translating knowledge to action

Once knowledge has been adapted to local context and the barriers to and facilitators of use of knowledge have been identified, [1][1] we must select, tailor and implement interventions for the uptake of knowledge. [2][2] This article provides an approach to selecting interventions for knowledge

Review article: Effectiveness of patient care teams and the role of clinical expertise and coordination: a literature review.

Health care is increasingly provided by teams of health professionals rather than by individual doctors. For decision makers, it is imperative to identify the critical elements for effective teams to transform health care workplaces into effective team-based environments. The authors reviewed the research literature published between 1990 and February 2008. The available research indicated that teams with enhanced clinical expertise improved professional performance and had mixed effects on patient outcomes. Teams with improved coordination had some positive effects on patient outcomes and limited effects on costs and resource utilization. The combination of enhanced expertise and coordination only showed some limited effect on patient outcomes. The authors conclude that enhancement of the clinical expertise is a potentially effective component of improving the impact of patient care teams. The added value of coordination functions remained unclear. Overall, current studies provide little insight into the underlying mechanisms of teamwork.

Understanding practice: the factors that influence management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department-a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BackgroundMild traumatic brain injury is a frequent cause of presentation to emergency departments. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines in this area, there is variation in practice. One of the aims of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation program is to develop and evaluate a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed intervention to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in Australian emergency departments. This study is the first step in the intervention development process and uses the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore the factors perceived to influence the uptake of four key evidence-based recommended practices for managing mild traumatic brain injury.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with emergency staff in the Australian state of Victoria. The interview guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore current practice and to identify the factors perceived to influence practice. Two researchers coded the interview transcripts using thematic content analysis.ResultsA total of 42 participants (9 Directors, 20 doctors and 13 nurses) were interviewed over a seven-month period. The results suggested that (i) the prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; skills; social/professional role and identity; and beliefs about capabilities; (ii) the use of guideline-developed criteria or decision rules to inform the appropriate use of a CT scan was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; beliefs about capabilities; social influences; skills and behavioral regulation; (iii) providing verbal and written patient information on discharge was influenced by: beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; social/professional role and identity; and knowledge; (iv) the practice of providing brief, routine follow-up on discharge was influenced by: environmental context and resources; social/professional role and identity; knowledge; beliefs about consequences; and motivation and goals.ConclusionsUsing the Theoretical Domains Framework, factors thought to influence the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department were identified. These factors present theoretically based targets for a future intervention.

Measuring team factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments

BackgroundMeasuring team factors in evaluations of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) may provide important information for enhancing CQI processes and outcomes; however, the large number of potentially relevant factors and associated measurement instruments makes inclusion of such measures challenging. This review aims to provide guidance on the selection of instruments for measuring team-level factors by systematically collating, categorizing, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments.MethodsData sources: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments; reference lists of systematic reviews; and citations and references of the main report of instruments. Study selection: To determine the scope of the review, we developed and used a conceptual framework designed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). We included papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring factors relevant to teamwork. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarizing and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorized using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care.ResultsWe identified 192 potentially relevant instruments, 170 of which were analyzed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-one instruments measured constructs relevant to CQI teams in primary care, with content covering teamwork context (45 instruments measured enabling conditions or attitudes to teamwork), team process (57 instruments measured teamwork behaviors), and team outcomes (59 instruments measured perceptions of the team or its effectiveness). Forty instruments were included for full review, many with a strong theoretical basis. Evidence supporting measurement properties was limited.ConclusionsExisting instruments cover many of the factors hypothesized to contribute to QI success. With further testing, use of these instruments measuring team factors in evaluations could aid our understanding of the influence of teamwork on CQI outcomes. Greater consistency in the factors measured and choice of measurement instruments is required to enable synthesis of findings for informing policy and practice.

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments

BackgroundContinuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measurement instruments by systematically collating, categorising, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments.MethodsData sources: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, reference lists of systematic reviews, and citations and references of the main report of instruments. Study selection: The scope of the review was determined by a conceptual framework developed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). Papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring a construct encompassed by the framework were included. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarising and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorised using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care.ResultsWe identified 186 potentially relevant instruments, 152 of which were analysed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-four instruments measured constructs relevant to primary care, with content measuring CQI implementation and use (19 instruments), organizational context (51 instruments), and individual factors (21 instruments). Forty-one instruments were included for full review. Development methods were often pragmatic, rather than systematic and theory-based, and evidence supporting measurement properties was limited.ConclusionsMany instruments are available for evaluating CQI, but most require further use and testing to establish their measurement properties. Further development and use of these measures in evaluations should increase the contribution made by individual studies to our understanding of CQI and enhance our ability to synthesise evidence for informing policy and practice.

Current treatment of chronic heart failure in primary care; still room for improvement

UNLABELLED RATIONAL AND AIMS: In recent years, guidelines for treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have been updated. Insight in current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of CHF in primary care, which was non-optimal in earlier studies, is limited. We aim to describe current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of CHF in primary care. METHODS In this cross-sectional observational study, we included a representative sample of 357 patients diagnosed with CHF from 42 primary care practices in the Netherlands. We combined medical record data with data from patient and doctor questionnaires. RESULTS Mean age of patients was 75.7 years (SD 10.2), 53% were male, and 73% of patients had mild heart failure (New York Heart Association class I or II). 76.5% of patients received diuretics. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were prescribed in 40.6% and angiotensin-II receptor blockers in 20.7%; beta-blockers were prescribed to 54.6%, while 24.9% received spironolactone. Patients with more severe heart failure had a lower probability of being treated according to guideline recommendations. Relevant lifestyle advice was given to 40-60% of the patients, depending on the specific lifestyle advice. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of evidence-based pharmacotherapy for heart failure in primary care has improved since clinical guidelines have been updated; especially with respect to prescription of beta-blockers. However, there still seems ample room for improvement, as in the case for providing lifestyle advice.

Effectiveness of patient care teams and the role of clinical expertise and coordination : a literature review

Health care is increasingly provided by teams of health professionals rather than by individual doctors. For decision makers, it is imperative to identify the critical elements for effective teams to transform health care workplaces into effective team-based environments. The authors reviewed the research literature published between 1990 and February 2008. The available research indicated that teams with enhanced clinical expertise improved professional performance and had mixed effects on patient outcomes. Teams with improved coordination had some positive effects on patient outcomes and limited effects on costs and resource utilization. The combination of enhanced expertise and coordination only showed some limited effect on patient outcomes. The authors conclude that enhancement of the clinical expertise is a potentially effective component of improving the impact of patient care teams. The added value of coordination functions remained unclear. Overall, current studies provide little insight into the underlying mechanisms of teamwork.

Developing a targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention using two theoretical frameworks to address health professional and organisational factors: a case study to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department

BackgroundDespite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED), variations in practice exist. Interventions designed to implement recommended behaviours can reduce this variation. Using theory to inform intervention development is advocated; however, there is no consensus on how to select or apply theory. Integrative theoretical frameworks, based on syntheses of theories and theoretical constructs relevant to implementation, have the potential to assist in the intervention development process. This paper describes the process of applying two theoretical frameworks to investigate the factors influencing recommended behaviours and the choice of behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery for an implementation intervention.MethodsA stepped approach was followed: (i) identification of locally applicable and actionable evidence-based recommendations as targets for change, (ii) selection and use of two theoretical frameworks for identifying barriers to and enablers of change (Theoretical Domains Framework and Model of Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations) and (iii) identification and operationalisation of intervention components (behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery) to address the barriers and enhance the enablers, informed by theory, evidence and feasibility/acceptability considerations. We illustrate this process in relation to one recommendation, prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) by ED staff using a validated tool.ResultsFour recommendations for managing mild traumatic brain injury were targeted with the intervention. The intervention targeting the PTA recommendation consisted of 14 behaviour change techniques and addressed 6 theoretical domains and 5 organisational domains. The mode of delivery was informed by six Cochrane reviews. It was delivered via five intervention components : (i) local stakeholder meetings, (ii) identification of local opinion leader teams, (iii) a train-the-trainer workshop for appointed local opinion leaders, (iv) local training workshops for delivery by trained local opinion leaders and (v) provision of tools and materials to prompt recommended behaviours.ConclusionsTwo theoretical frameworks were used in a complementary manner to inform intervention development in managing mild traumatic brain injury in the ED. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention is being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial, part of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program.