Health TAPESTRY Ontario: A Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Trial Testing Implementation and Reproducibility.

PURPOSE: Health Teams Advancing Patient Experience: Strengthening Quality (Health TAPESTRY) is a complex primary care program aimed at assisting older adults to stay healthier for longer. This study evaluated the feasibility of implementation across multiple sites, and the reproducibility of the effects found in the previous randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, unblinded, 6-month parallel group randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized (intervention or control) using a computer-generated system. Eligible patients, aged 70 years and older, were rostered to 1 of 6 participating interprofessional primary care practices (urban and rural). In total, 599 (301 intervention, 298 control) patients were recruited from March 2018 through August 2019. Intervention participants received a home visit from volunteers to collect information on physical and mental health, and social context. An interprofessional care team created and implemented a plan of care. The primary outcomes were physical activity and number of hospitalizations. RESULTS: Based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, Health TAPESTRY had widespread reach and adoption. In the intention-to-treat analysis (257 intervention, 255 control), there were no statistically significant between-group differences for hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48-1.30; P = .35) or total physical activity (mean difference = -0.26; 95% CI, -1.18 to 0.67; P = .58). There were 37 non-study related serious adverse events (19 intervention, 18 control). CONCLUSIONS: We found Health TAPESTRY was successfully implemented for patients in diverse primary care practices; however, implementation did not reproduce the effect on hospitalizations and physical activity found in the initial randomized controlled trial.

Understanding collaborative implementation between community and academic partners in a complex intervention: a qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Community-academic partnerships (CAPs) can improve the relevance, sustainability, and uptake of new innovations within the community. However, little is known about what topics CAPs focus on and how their discussions and decisions impact implementation at ground level. The objectives of this study were to better understand the activities and learnings from implementation of a complex health intervention by a CAP at the planner/decision-maker level, and how that compared to experiences implementing the program at local sites. METHODS: The intervention, Health TAPESTRY, was implemented by a nine-partner CAP including academic, charitable organizations, and primary care practices. Meeting minutes were analyzed using qualitative description, latent content analysis, and a member check with key implementors. An open-answer survey about the best and worst elements of the program was completed by clients and health care providers and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 128 meeting minutes were analyzed, 278 providers and clients completed the survey, and six people participated in the member check. Prominent topics of discussion categories from the meeting minutes were: primary care sites, volunteer coordination, volunteer experience, internal and external connections, and sustainability and scalability. Clients liked that they learned new things and gained awareness of community programs, but did not like the volunteer visit length. Clinicians liked the regular interprofessional team meetings but found the program time-consuming. CONCLUSIONS: An important learning was about who had "voice" at the planner/decision-maker level: many of the topics discussed in meeting minutes were not identified as issues or lasting impacts by clients or providers; this may be due to differing roles and needs, but may also identify a gap. Overall, we identified three phases that could serve as a guide for other CAPs: Phase (1) recruitment, financial support, and data ownership; Phase (2) considerations for modifications and adaptations; Phase (3) active input and reflection.

Understanding how context and culture in six communities can shape implementation of a complex intervention: a comparative case study.

BACKGROUND: Contextual factors can act as barriers or facilitators to scaling-up health care interventions, but there is limited understanding of how context and local culture can lead to differences in implementation of complex interventions with multiple stakeholder groups. This study aimed to explore and describe the nature of and differences between communities implementing Health TAPESTRY, a complex primary care intervention aiming to keep older adults healthier in their homes for longer, as it was scaled beyond its initial effectiveness trial. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study with six communities in Ontario, Canada implementing Health TAPESTRY. We focused on differences between three key elements: interprofessional primary care teams, volunteer program coordination, and the client experience. Sources of data included semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Data were analyzed through the steps of thematic analysis. We then created matrices in NVivo by splitting the qualitative data by community and comparing across the key elements of the Health TAPESTRY intervention. RESULTS: Overall 135 people participated (39 clients, 8 clinical managers, 59 health providers, 6 volunteer coordinators, and 23 volunteers). The six communities had differences in size and composition of both their primary care practices and communities, and how the volunteer program and Health TAPESTRY were implemented. Distinctions between communities relating to the work of the interprofessional teams included characteristics of the huddle lead, involvement of physicians and the volunteer coordinator, and clarity of providers' role with Health TAPESTRY. Key differences between communities relating to volunteer program coordination included the relationship between the volunteers and primary care practices, volunteer coordinator characteristics, volunteer training, and connections with the community. Differences regarding the client experience between communities included differing approaches used in implementation, such as recruitment methods. CONCLUSIONS: Although all six communities had the same key program elements, implementation differed community-by-community. Key aspects that seemed to lead to differences across categories included the size and spread of communities, size of primary care practices, and linkages between program elements. We suggest future programs engaging stakeholders from the beginning and provide clear roles; target the most appropriate clients; and consider the size of communities and practices in implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03397836 .

Community Volunteers and Primary Care Providers Supporting Older Adults in System Navigation: A Mixed Methods Study.

Introduction: Primary care providers and community volunteers have important roles in supporting patient system navigation and utilization of community-based health and social services (CBHSS). This study aimed to explore the experiences and impacts of system navigation in a complex intervention supporting older adults. Methods: We used a convergent mixed methods design. Participants included primary care team members (n = 67), community volunteers (n = 38), and programme clients (n = 128) across six communities in Ontario, Canada. Data sources included focus groups, interviews, system navigation function survey for volunteers, CBHSS use survey for clients, and implementation data on CBHSS recommended by providers and volunteers and used by clients. Results: Results showed the different patterns of how CBHSS categories were recommended and ultimately used. Exercise-related CBHSS were both recommended and used, independence-related CBHSS were mostly only recommended with less uptake, and chronic health condition and diet/nutrition CBHSS were most often used by clients. Discussion: Primary care teams' practice of system navigation was impacted by programme participation, including through learning about local CBHSS. However, volunteers felt more confident in tasks that did not include connecting to CBHSS. The programme did seem to result in many referrals, though the actual client uptake tended to be to more clinical rather than healthy lifestyle resources.