Effect of care management program structure on implementation: a normalization process theory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Care management in primary care can be effective in helping patients with chronic disease improve their health status, however, primary care practices are often challenged with implementation. Further, there are different ways to structure care management that may make implementation more or less successful. Normalization process theory (NPT) provides a means of understanding how a new complex intervention can become routine (normalized) in practice. In this study, we used NPT to understand how care management structure affected how well care management became routine in practice. METHODS: Data collection involved semi-structured interviews and observations conducted at 25 practices in five physician organizations in Michigan, USA. Practices were selected to reflect variation in physician organizations, type of care management program, and degree of normalization. Data were transcribed, qualitatively coded and analyzed, initially using an editing approach and then a template approach with NPT as a guiding framework. RESULTS: Seventy interviews and 25 observations were completed. Two key structures for care management organization emerged: practice-based care management where the care managers were embedded in the practice as part of the practice team; and centralized care management where the care managers worked independently of the practice work flow and was located outside the practice. There were differences in normalization of care management across practices. Practice-based care management was generally better normalized as compared to centralized care management. Differences in normalization were well explained by the NPT, and in particular the collective action construct. When care managers had multiple and flexible opportunities for communication (interactional workability), had the requisite knowledge, skills, and personal characteristics (skill set workability), and the organizational support and resources (contextual integration), a trusting professional relationship (relational integration) developed between practice providers and staff and the care manager. When any of these elements were missing, care management implementation appeared to be affected negatively. CONCLUSIONS: Although care management can introduce many new changes into delivery of clinical practice, implementing it successfully as a new complex intervention is possible. NPT can be helpful in explaining differences in implementing a new care management program with a view to addressing them during implementation planning.

Sustaining "meaningful use" of health information technology in low-resource practices.

PURPOSE: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has been extensively studied, but their maintenance once implemented has not. The Regional Extension Center (REC) program provides implementation assistance to priority practices-those with limited financial, technical, and organizational resources-but the assistance is time limited. Our objective was to identify potential barriers to maintenance of meaningful use of EHRs in priority primary care practices using a qualitative observational study for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and priority practices in Michigan. METHODS: We conducted cognitive task analysis (CTA) interviews and direct observations of health information technology implementation in FQHCs. In addition, we conducted semistructured interviews with implementation specialists serving priority practices to detect emergent themes relevant to maintenance. RESULTS: Maintaining EHR technology will require ongoing expert technical support indefinitely beyond implementation to address upgrades and security needs. Maintaining meaningful use for quality improvement will require ongoing support for leadership and change management. Priority practices not associated with larger systems lack access to the necessary technical expertise, financial resources, and leverage with vendors to continue alone. Rural priority practices are particularly challenged, because expertise is often not available locally. CONCLUSIONS: Priority practices, especially in rural areas, are at high risk for falling on the wrong side of a "digital divide" as payers and regulators enact increasing expectations for EHR use and information management. For those without affiliation to maintain the necessary expert staff, ongoing support will be needed for those practices to remain viable.

Understanding effective care management implementation in primary care: a macrocognition perspective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Care management in primary care can be effective in helping patients with chronic disease improve their health status. Primary care practices, however, are often challenged with its implementation. Incorporating care management involves more than a simple physical process redesign to existing clinical care routines. It involves changes to who is working with patients, and consequently such things as who is making decisions, who is sharing patient information, and how. Studying the range of such changes in "knowledge work" during implementation requires a perspective and tools designed to do so. We used the macrocognition perspective, which is designed to understand how individuals think in dynamic, messy real-world environments such as care management implementation. To do so, we used cognitive task analysis to understand implementation in terms of such thinking as decision making, knowledge, and communication. METHODS: Data collection involved semi-structured interviews and observations at baseline and at approximately 9 months into implementation at five practices in one physician-owned administratively connected group of practices in the state of Michigan, USA. Practices were intervention participants in a larger trial of chronic care model implementation. Data were transcribed, qualitatively coded and analyzed, initially using an editing approach and then a template approach with macrocognition as a guiding framework. RESULTS: Seventy-four interviews and five observations were completed. There were differences in implementation success across the practices, and these differences in implementation success were well explained by macrocognition. Practices that used more macrocognition functions and used them more often were also more successful in care management implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Although care management can introduce many new changes into the delivery of primary care clinical practice, implementing it successfully as a new complex intervention is possible. Macrocognition is a useful perspective for illuminating the elements that facilitate new complex interventions with a view to addressing them during implementation planning.