Community based Primary Care for Adolescents and Young Adults Transitioning From Pediatric Specialty Care: Results from a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing primary care during adolescence is recommended by best practice guidelines for adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 12-25) with chronic conditions. A synthesis of the evidence on the roles of Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) and benefits of primary care is needed to support existing guidelines. METHODS: We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, and searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL) for studies that (i) were published in English between 2004 and 2019, (ii) focused on AYAs with a chronic condition(s) who had received specialist pediatric services, and (iii) included relevant findings about PCPs. An extraction tool was developed to organize data items across studies (eg, study design, participant demographics, outcomes). RESULTS: Findings from 58 studies were synthesized; 29 (50%) studies focused exclusively on AYAs with chronic health conditions (eg, diabetes, cancer), while 19 (33%) focused exclusively on AYAs with mental health conditions. Roles of PCPs included managing medications, "non-complex" mental health conditions, referrals, and care coordination, etc. Frequency of PCP involvement varied by AYAs; however, female, non-Black, and older AYAs, and those with severe/complex conditions appeared more likely to visit a PCP. Positive outcomes were reported for shared-care models targeting various conditions (eg, cancer, concussion, mental health). CONCLUSION: Our findings drew attention to the importance of effective collaboration among multi-disciplinary specialists, PCPs, and AYAs for overcoming multiple barriers to optimal transitional care. Highlighting the need for further study of the implementation of shared care models to design strategies for care delivery during transitions to adult care.

Contextual factors influencing the implementation of innovations in community-based primary health care: the experience of 12 Canadian research teams.

The objectives of this paper are to: (1) identify contextual factors such as policy that impacted the implementation of community-based primary health care (CBPHC) innovations among 12 Canadian research teams and (2) describe strategies used by the teams to address contextual factors influencing implementation of CBPHC innovations. In primary care settings, consideration of contextual factors when implementing change has been recognized as critically important to success. However, contextual factors are rarely recorded, analyzed or considered when implementing change. The lack of consideration of contextual factors has negative implications not only for successfully implementing primary health care (PHC) innovations, but also for their sustainability and scalability. For this evaluation, data collection was conducted using self-administered questionnaires and follow-up telephone interviews with team representatives. We used a combination of directed and conventional content analysis approaches to analyze the questionnaire and interview data. Representatives from all 12 teams completed the questionnaire and 11 teams participated in the interviews; 40 individuals participated in this evaluation. Four themes representing contextual factors that impacted the implementation of CBPHC innovations were identified: (I) diversity of jurisdictions (II) complexity of interactions and collaborations (III) policy, and (IV) the multifaceted nature of PHC. The teams used six strategies to address these contextual factors including: (1) conduct an environmental scan at the beginning (2) maintaining engagement among partners and stakeholders by encouraging open and inclusive communication; (3) contextualizing the innovation for different settings; (4) anticipating and addressing changes, delays, and the need for additional resources; (5) fostering a culture of research and innovation among partners and stakeholders; and (6) ensuring information about the innovation is widely available. Implementing CBPHC innovations across jurisdictions is complex and involves navigating through multiple contextual factors. Awareness of the dynamic nature of context should be considered when implementing innovations.

Uncovering the wisdom hidden between the lines: the Collaborative Reflexive Deliberative Approach.

Background: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis have been developed to synthesize results across published studies; however, they are still largely grounded in what is already published, missing the tacit 'between the lines' knowledge generated during many research projects that are not intrinsic to the main objectives of studies. Objective: To develop a novel approach to expand and deepen meta-syntheses using researchers' experience, tacit knowledge and relevant unpublished materials. Methods: We established new collaborations among primary health care researchers from different contexts based on common interests in reforming primary care service delivery and a diversity of perspectives. Over 2 years, the team met face-to-face and via tele- and video-conferences to employ the Collaborative Reflexive Deliberative Approach (CRDA) to discuss and reflect on published and unpublished results from participants' studies to identify new patterns and insights. Results: CRDA focuses on uncovering critical insights, interpretations hidden within multiple research contexts. For the process to work, careful attention must be paid to ensure sufficient diversity among participants while also having people who are able to collaborate effectively. Ensuring there are enough studies for contextual variation also matters. It is necessary to balance rigorous facilitation techniques with the creation of safe space for diverse contributions. Conclusions: The CRDA requires large commitments of investigator time, the expense of convening facilitated retreats, considerable coordination, and strong leadership. The process creates an environment where interactions among diverse participants can illuminate hidden information within the contexts of studies, effectively enhancing theory development and generating new research questions and strategies.

Contextual levers for team-based primary care: lessons from reform interventions in five jurisdictions in three countries.

Background: Most Western nations have sought primary care (PC) reform due to the rising costs of health care and the need to manage long-term health conditions. A common reform-the introduction of inter-professional teams into traditional PC settings-has been difficult to implement despite financial investment and enthusiasm. Objective: To synthesize findings across five jurisdictions in three countries to identify common contextual factors influencing the successful implementation of teamwork within PC practices. Methods: An international consortium of researchers met via teleconference and regular face-to-face meetings using a Collaborative Reflexive Deliberative Approach to re-analyse and synthesize their published and unpublished data and their own work experience. Studies were evaluated through reflection and facilitated discussion to identify factors associated with successful teamwork implementation. Matrices were used to summarize interpretations from the studies. Results: Seven common levers influence a jurisdiction's ability to implement PC teams. Team-based PC was promoted when funding extended beyond fee-for-service, where care delivery did not require direct physician involvement and where governance was inclusive of non-physician disciplines. Other external drivers included: the health professional organizations' attitude towards team-oriented PC, the degree of external accountability required of practices, and the extent of their links with the community and medical neighbourhood. Programs involving outreach facilitation, leadership training and financial support for team activities had some effect. Conclusion: The combination of physician dominance and physician aligned fee-for-service payment structures provide a profound barrier to implement team-oriented PC. Policy makers should carefully consider the influence of these and our other identified drivers when implementing team-oriented PC.

Interprofessional teamwork innovations for primary health care practices and practitioners: evidence from a comparison of reform in three countries.

CONTEXT: A key aim of reforms to primary health care (PHC) in many countries has been to enhance interprofessional teamwork. However, the impact of these changes on practitioners has not been well understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of reform policies and interventions that have aimed to create or enhance teamwork on professional communication relationships, roles, and work satisfaction in PHC practices. DESIGN: Collaborative synthesis of 12 mixed methods studies. SETTING: Primary care practices undergoing transformational change in three countries: Australia, Canada, and the USA, including three Canadian provinces (Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec). METHODS: We conducted a synthesis and secondary analysis of 12 qualitative and quantitative studies conducted by the authors in order to understand the impacts and how they were influenced by local context. RESULTS: There was a diverse range of complex reforms seeking to foster interprofessional teamwork in the care of patients with chronic disease. The impact on communication and relationships between different professional groups, the roles of nursing and allied health services, and the expressed satisfaction of PHC providers with their work varied more within than between jurisdictions. These variations were associated with local contextual factors such as the size, power dynamics, leadership, and physical environment of the practice. Unintended consequences included deterioration of the work satisfaction of some team members and conflict between medical and nonmedical professional groups. CONCLUSION: The variation in impacts can be understood to have arisen from the complexity of interprofessional dynamics at the practice level. The same characteristic could have both positive and negative influence on different aspects (eg, larger practice may have less capacity for adoption but more capacity to support interprofessional practice). Thus, the impacts are not entirely predictable and need to be monitored, and so that interventions can be adapted at the local level.