Integrated care models in Swiss primary care: An embedded multiple case study.

RATIONALE, AIMSAND OBJECTIVES: Healthcare systems are confronted with a rising number of patients with chronic conditions and complex care needs, requiring the development of new models of coordinated, patient-centred care. In this study, we aimed to describe and compare a range of new models of care recently implemented in primary care in Switzerland, as well as to gain insight into the type of coordination or integration implemented, the strengths and weaknesses of each model and the challenges they face. METHOD: We used an embedded multiple case study design to describe in-depth a series of current Swiss initiatives that specifically aim to improve care coordination in primary care. For each model, documents were collected, a questionnaire was administered and semistructured interviews with key actors were conducted. A within-case analysis followed by a cross-case analysis were performed. Based on the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care framework, similarities and differences between the models were highlighted. RESULTS: Eight integrated care initiatives were included in the analysis, representing three types of models: independent multiprofessional GP practices, multiprofessional GP practices/health centres that are part of larger groups and regional integrated delivery systems. Recognized effective activities and tools to improve care coordination, such as multidisciplinary teams, case manager involvement, use of electronic medical records, patient education and use of care plans, were implemented by at least six of the eight initiatives studied. The main obstacles to the implementation of integrated care models were the inadequate Swiss reimbursement policies and payment mechanisms and the desire of some healthcare professionals to protect their territory in a context where new roles are emerging. CONCLUSION: The integrated care models implemented in Switzerland are promising; nevertheless, financial and legal reforms must be introduced to promote integrated care in practice.

Nationwide implementation of the self-management program "Living well with COPD": Process and effectiveness evaluation using a mixed-methods approach.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the nationwide implementation of the "Living well with COPD" program by the Swiss Lung Association in various cantons in Switzerland. METHODS: For the process evaluation, we used qualitative (interview, focus group) and quantitative (questionnaires, documentation analysis) methods to assess the implementation outcomes reach, dose, fidelity and acceptability. For the effectiveness, we performed a pre-post analysis of patient data collected at baseline and program end (after 14 months). RESULTS: Seven Cantonal Lung Associations implemented the program into their services according to plan, conducted it 13 times and included 122 COPD patients. Patients' attendance rate was 81% and coaches' fidelity to protocol 94%. Acceptance and satisfaction of all involved persons was high. Integration of the coaches' additional workload, uncertainties regarding roles and responsibilities and sustainable reimbursement were major challenges. Patients significantly improved in COPD specific quality of life and increased exercise capacity with on average 3.2 more repetitions in the 1-minute sit-to-stand test. CONCLUSION: The program was successfully implemented throughout Switzerland with high acceptability and positive association with patients' quality of life. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings support the broader multiplication throughout Switzerland and serves the international community since it is one of the first nationwide implementations beyond study settings.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0). RESULTS: 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types. CONCLUSIONS: This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual). RESULTS: Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution. CONCLUSIONS: The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Interest in and use of person-centred pharmacy services - a Swiss study of people with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is one of the most important chronic diseases and affects 9% of the world's population. To support these people in the day-to-day management of their treatments, pharmacies can offer professional pharmacy services. These are defined as one or more actions organized or provided in a pharmacy to optimize the process of care, with the goal of improving health outcomes and the value of healthcare. Such services have to be tailored to the needs and interests of patients. This study aimed to evaluate interest in and use of pharmacy services among people with diabetes in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analysed self-reported data from 790 people with diabetes included in the CoDiab-VD cohort. Questions focused on sociodemographic and economic characteristics, diabetes and its management, and interest in and use of pharmacy services related to (1) medication intake and adherence and (2) diabetes and general health. Descriptive analyses were first conducted. Logistic regression analyses were then performed for pharmacy services that were of interest to ≥50% of respondents. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 66 years, and the sample included more males (59%) than females. The pharmacy services that interested the most respondents were individual interview, pill boxes or weekly pill boxes, treatment plans, checks of all medications, first medical opinions from pharmacists and counselling on devices. Factors significantly associated with interest in pharmacy services were being older, having a lower self-efficacy score, taking more than three medications and having a positive opinion about pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key information on interest in and use of pharmacy services among patients with diabetes in Switzerland; it should help pharmacists individualize their services for patients.

Feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of integrated care for COPD patients: a mixed methods evaluation of a pilot community-based programme.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a pilot COPD integrated care programme implemented in Valais, Switzerland. METHODS: The programme was adapted from the self-management programme Living Well with COPD, and included the following elements: self-management patient-education group sessions, telephone and medical follow-ups, multidisciplinary teams, training of healthcare professionals, and evidence-based COPD care. A process and outcome evaluation of the pilot phase of the programme was conducted by means of qualitative and quantitative methods. Reach (coverage, participation rates), dosage (interventions carried out), fidelity (delivered as intended) and stakeholders' acceptance of the programme were evaluated through data monitoring and conduct of focus groups with patients and healthcare professionals. Effectiveness was assessed with pre-post analyses (before and after the intervention). The primary outcome measures were; (1) generic and disease-specific quality of life (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire); and (2) hospitalisations (all-cause and for acute exacerbations) in the past 12 months. Secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, number of exacerbations and exercise capacity. Finally, controlled pre-post comparisons were also made with patients from the Swiss COPD Cohort for three common outcome measures (dyspnoea [mMRC score], number of exacerbations and smoking status). RESULTS: During the first 2 years of the programme, eight series of group-based education sessions were delivered to 57 patients with COPD in three different locations of the canton of Valais. Coverage objectives were achieved and attendance rate at the education sessions was high (83.6%). Patients' and healthcare professionals' reported a high degree of satisfaction, except for multidisciplinarity and transfer of information. Exploration of the effectiveness of this pilot programme suggested positive pre-post results at 12 months, with improvements in terms of health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, exercise capacity, immunisation coverage and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score. No other outcome, including the number of hospital admissions, differed significantly after 12 months. We observed no differences from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the programme and confirmed the relevance of mixed method process evaluation to adjust and improve programme implementation. The introduction of multidisciplinary teams in a context characterised by fragmentation of care was identified as the main challenge in the programme implementation and could not be achieved as expected. Despite this area for improvement, patients' feedback and early effectiveness results confirmed the benefits of COPD integrated care programmes emphasising self-management education.

Awareness and practices regarding eye diseases among patients with diabetes: a cross sectional analysis of the CoDiab-VD cohort.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of diabetes is leading to a rise of eye diseases, augmenting the risk of sight-threatening complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate prevalence, awareness and practices regarding eye diseases among patients with diabetes in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. METHODS: A cohort of 323 patients with diabetes completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing prevalence, awareness and practices regarding eye diseases, besides health status and quality of care measures. Descriptive analyses followed by exploratory subgroup analyses and linear regressions were performed to investigate factors associated with awareness and practices. RESULTS: While diabetic retinopathy was reported by 40.9% of patients with type 1 diabetes and 9.8% of patients with type 2 diabetes, 35.8% and 12.6% of all participants reported cataract and glaucoma, respectively. Awareness that diabetes could damage the eyes was reported by almost all participants; the majority was also aware of the importance of glycemic control and regular eye examination in preventing eye diseases. In contrast, only 70.5% of participants underwent an eye examination by an ophthalmologist during the past year. Eye examination was associated with better patients' awareness. Barriers mentioned by patients revealed a lack of knowledge about screening guidelines, in particular regarding the preventive nature of eye examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high levels of awareness regarding diabetic eye diseases, a significant proportion of patients with diabetes did not report annual eye examination. Both healthcare strategic efforts targeting the promotion of regular eye examination and initiatives aiming at improving knowledge of screening guidelines should be encouraged. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov on 9th July 2013, identifier NCT01902043 (retrospectively registered).