Development and implementation of a treatment pathway to reduce coronary angiograms - lessons from a failure.

BACKGROUND: The rates of coronary angiograms (CA) and related procedures (percutaneous intervention [PCI]) are significantly higher in Germany than in other Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) countries. The current guidelines recommend non-invasive diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD); CA should only have a limited role in choosing the appropriate revascularisation procedure. The aim of the present study was to explore whether improvements in guideline adherence can be achieved through the implementation of regional treatment pathways. We chose four regions of Germany with high utilisation of CAs for the study. Here we report the results of the concomitant qualitative study. METHODS: General practitioners and specialist physicians (cardiologists, hospital-based cardiologists, emergency physicians, radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists) caring for patients with suspected CHD were invited to develop regional treatment pathways. Four academic departments provided support for moderation, provision of materials, etc. The study team observed session discussions and took notes. After the development of the treatment pathways, 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participating physicians. Interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim and underwent qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Pathway development received little support among the participants. Although consensus documents were produced, the results were unlikely to improve practice. The participants expressed very little commitment to change. Although this attempt clearly failed in all study regions, our experience provides relevant insights into the process of evidence appraisal and implementation. A lack of organisational skills, ignorance of current evidence and guidelines, and a lack of feedback regarding one's own clinical behaviour proved to be insurmountable. CA was still seen as the diagnostic gold standard by most interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Oversupply and overutilisation can be assumed to be present in study regions but are not immediately perceived by clinicians. The problem is unlikely to be solved by regional collaborative initiatives; optimised resource planning within the health care system combined with appropriate economic incentives might best address these issues.

Conducting Qualitative Research under Pandemic Restrictions - Considerations, Challenges, and Benefits: A Methodological Field Report. / Durchführung qualitativer Forschung unter pandemiebedingten Einschränkungen ­ Überlegungen, Herausforderungen und Vorteile: Ein Erfahrungsbericht.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has a significant impact on professionals working in the medical area, with very high workload and tightened safety restrictions for physicians, nurses, caregivers, and patients. One of the main target participants in health services research are medical professionals. Their experiences contribute immensely to any research project aiming to improve delivery and quality of care. Furthermore, their input gives significantly greater insights into the handling of the pandemic and into what future improvements should be considered. In our research project ADAPTIVE (Impact of Digital Technologies in Palliative Care) we evaluate with qualitative research methods the impact of a web-based software on communication, teamwork, and lasting transformations in accountability in multidisciplinary teams (e. g., medication and independent decisions). In this paper, we discuss the challenges and benefits of conducting a qualitative research project under pandemic conditions by illustrating the progress of ADAPTIVE. METHODS: ADAPTIVE started in March 2020 and ended in August 2021. For data collection, we interviewed 26 participants about using a web-based program to facilitate the exchange of patient information in multidisciplinary teams in outpatient palliative care in Germany (mainly physicians and nurses). However, due to emerging hygiene regulations, corona-related restrictions, and the ongoing workload of medical professionals, the recruiting and interviewing process were challenging. Hence, we had to modify the original study design of two face-to-face interviews per participant and a focus group discussion into one telephone interview. The focus groups were cancelled. RESULTS: We discussed several adjustments to the data collection. However, the privacy policies of different clinics, participants' lack of experience with video calls, and a potential poor internet connectivity eliminated the option of digital video interviewing. Therefore, we interviewed 21 participants by telephone and only five face-to-face. Further, the focus group discussions initially planned had to be dropped since a simultaneous gathering of the participants was not possible due to several reasons. Nonetheless, we obtained many insights into the usage of digital support systems in palliative care by conducting 26 interviews, allowing us to complete the research project. DISCUSSION: Telephone interviews come with limitations. Firstly, it may be difficult for participants to establish a trusting relationship with the interviewer. Secondly, non-verbal communication is lost during a telephone interview. However, expanding the survey methodology to include telephone interviews gave us the option of allowing us to expand the recruitment nationwide and overcome issues successfully. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and data collection showed to be more time-consuming under pandemic circumstances, and further survey methods such as focus groups were nearly impossible. However, a qualitative research design offers greater flexibility when adapting study designs.

Impact of information and communication software on multiprofessional team collaboration in outpatient palliative care - a qualitative study on providers' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The communication processes between different stakeholders in outpatient palliative care face challenges when multiprofessional teams want to keep each other updated on patient information. Meanwhile, the software market offers different tools to connect these teams in real-time to improve communication. In the research project ADAPTIVE (Impact of Digital Technologies in Palliative Care), we investigated how information and communication technology affects collaboration and work in multiprofessional teams and what advantages and disadvantages the use of said software might entail. METHODS: We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews between August and November 2020 with general practitioners (n = 8), palliative care nurses (n = 17), and a pharmacist (n = 1). They were conducted in a hybrid format, meaning that both face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews were carried out. Subsequently, we analyzed the interviews following the qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. RESULTS: Information and communication software has the potential to enable faster communication and delegation of tasks and to simplify communication and task management between providers. Furthermore, it creates the opportunity to decrease unnecessary supervision of duties and responsibilities for physicians in multiprofessional teams. Therefore, it allows facilitating the collaboration between multiprofessional teams that work independently of each other but care for the same patients. All providers have the same knowledge about their patients without time-consuming coordination such as phone calls or search processes in paper documentation. On the other hand, mishandling, poor Internet connection, and unfamiliarity with various features can diminish these benefits. CONCLUSION: Even though the use of such software offers many advantages, these advantages only reveal themselves if the software is used as it was intended by the developers. Misuse and unawareness of the individual functions can lead to the full potential not being realized. The software developers frequently offer specialized training, and the multiprofessional teams should utilize that to improve team communication, facilitate tasks, and allow physicians to delegate tasks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00021603 (Registration number: DRKS00021603; date of first registration: 02/07/2020).