Continuous adaptation of conversation aids for uterine fibroids treatment options in a four-year multi-center implementation project.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids are non-cancerous uterine growths that can cause symptoms impacting quality of life. The breadth of treatment options allows for patient-centered preference. While conversation aids are known to facilitate shared decision making, the implementation of these aids for uterine fibroids treatments is limited. We aimed to develop two end-user-acceptable uterine fibroids conversation aids for an implementation project. Our second aim was to outline the adaptations that were made to the conversation aids as implementation occurred. METHODS: We used a multi-phase user-centered participatory approach to develop a text-based and picture-enhanced conversation aid for uterine fibroids. We conducted a focus group with project stakeholders and user-testing interviews with eligible individuals with symptomatic uterine fibroids. We analyzed the results of the user-testing interviews using Morville's Honeycomb framework. Spanish translations of the conversation aids occurred in parallel with the English iterations. We documented the continuous adaptations of the conversation aids that occurred during the project using an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions (FRAME). RESULTS: The first iteration of the conversation aids was developed in December 2018. Focus group participants (n = 6) appreciated the brevity of the tools and suggested changes to the bar graphs and illustrations used in the picture-enhanced version. User-testing with interview participants (n = 9) found that both conversation aids were satisfactory, with minor changes suggested. However, during implementation, significant changes were suggested by patients, other stakeholders, and participating clinicians when they reviewed the content. The most significant changes required the addition or deletion of information about treatment options as newer research was published or as novel interventions were introduced into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-year project revealed the necessity of continuously adapting the uterine fibroids conversation aids so they remain acceptable in an implementation and sustainability context. Therefore, it is important to seek regular user feedback and plan for the need to undertake updates and revisions to conversation aids if they are going to be acceptable for clinical use.

From assurance to coproduction: a century of improving the quality of health-care service.

BACKGROUND: Over the last century, the invitation to improve health-care service quality has taken many different forms: questions, observations, methods, tools and actions have emerged and evolved to create relevant 'improvement work.' In this paper we present three phases of this work. The basic frameworks used in these phases have not supplanted each other, but they have been layered one upon the next over time. Each brought important new thinking, new change opportunities and a new set of limits. The important messages of each need to be carried together into the future, as must the sense of curiosity and possibility about the commonalities that has driven this evolution. METHODS: Literature, personal experience and other artifacts were reviewed to develop this description of how the focus on quality work has evolved (and continues to evolve) over the last century. RESULTS: We describe three phases. Quality 1.0 seeks to answer the question 'How might we establish thresholds for good healthcare services?' It described certain 'basic' standards that should be used to certify acceptable performance and capability. This led to the formation of formal processes for review, documentation and external audits and a system for public notice and recognition. Over time, the limits and risks of this approach also became more visible: a 'micro-accounting compliance' sometimes triumphed over what might be of even greater strategic importance in the development and operations of effective systems of disease prevention and management to improve outcomes for patients and families. Quality 2.0 asked 'How might we use enterprise-wide systems for disease management?' It added a focus on the processes and systems of production, reduction of unwanted variation, the intrinsic motivation to take pride in work, outcome measurement and collaborative work practices as ways to improve quality, modeled on experiences in other industries. Quality 3.0 asks 'How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?' It requires careful consideration of the meaning of 'service' and 'value', service-creating logic, and prompts us to consider both relationships and activities in the context of the coproduction of health-care services. CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve the quality and value of health-care services have evolved over the last century. With each success have come new challenges and questions, requiring the addition of new frames and approaches.

A starter's guide to learning and teaching how to coproduce healthcare services.

BACKGROUND: There has been insufficient attention paid to the role of learning in co-production-both how service users and professional service providers learn to co-produce effectively and how the lessons of co-production are captured at a service level. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and test a curriculum to support healthcare professionals' interest in learning how to co-produce health and healthcare services with patients. METHODS: We developed a co-production curriculum that was tested iteratively in multiple in-person and virtual teaching sessions and short courses. We conducted a formative evaluation of the co-production curriculum and teaching tools to tailor the curriculum. RESULTS: Several theories underpin our approach to learning and teaching how to co-produce healthcare services. The co-production curriculum is grounded in systems theory and shares elements of educational theories, namely, the postmodern curriculum matrix, the actor network theory and situated learning in communities of practice. Learning participants valued the sense of community, the experiential learning environment, and the practical methods to support their exploration of co-production. CONCLUSION: This paper summarizes the educational theories that underpin our efforts to develop and implement the curriculum, reports on a formative assessment conducted with learners, and makes recommendations for creating an environment for learning how health professionals can co-produce health and healthcare with patients.

Impact of relational coordination on staff and patient outcomes in outpatient surgical clinics.

BACKGROUND: Pressures are increasing for clinicians to provide high-quality, efficient care, leading to increased concerns about staff burnout. PURPOSE: This study asks whether staff well-being can be achieved in ways that are also beneficial for the patient's experience of care. It explores whether relational coordination can contribute to both staff well-being and patient satisfaction in outpatient surgical clinics where time constraints paired with high needs for information transfer increase both the need for and the challenge of achieving timely and accurate communication. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We studied relational coordination among surgeons, nurses, residents, administrators, technicians, and secretaries in 11 outpatient surgical clinics. Data were combined from a staff and a patient survey to conduct a cross-sectional study. Data were analyzed using ordinary least squares and random effects regression models. RESULTS: Relational coordination among all workgroups was significantly associated with staff outcomes, including job satisfaction, work engagement, and burnout. Relational coordination was also significantly associated with patients' satisfaction with staff and their overall visit, though the association between relational coordination and patients' satisfaction with their providers did not reach statistical significance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Even when patient-staff interactions are relatively brief, as in outpatient settings, high levels of relational coordination among interdependent workgroups contribute to positive outcomes for both staff and patients, and low levels tend to have the opposite effect. Clinical leaders can increase the expectation of positive outcomes for both staff and their patients by implementing interventions to strengthen relational coordination.

Encounter decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making with women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding or symptomatic uterine fibroids: A before-after study.

OBJECTIVE: Is the level of shared decision-making (SDM) higher after introduction of a SDM package (including encounter decision aids on treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding and training for clinicians) than before?. METHODS: This before-after study, performed in OB-GYN practice, compared consultations before and after introduction of a SDM package. The target sample size was 25 patients per group. Women seeking treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were eligible. After their appointments, patients filled out a three-item patient-reported SDM measure. Treatment discussions were audio-recorded and rated for SDM using Observer OPTION5. Consultation transcripts in the 'after' group were checked for adherence to the steps required for intended use of decision aids. RESULTS: 16 gynaecologists participated. 25 patients participated before introduction of the decision aids and 28 after. The proportion of women reporting optimal SDM was higher after introduction (75 %) than before (50 %;p < 0.001). The mean observer-rated level of SDM was also significantly higher after than before (MD = 12.50,95 % CI 5.53-19.47). CONCLUSION: The level of SDM was higher after the introduction of the package than before. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study was conducted in a real-life setting in three clinics, both large academic and small rural, offering opportunities for implementation in different type of organizations.

Coproducing Health Professions Education: A Prerequisite to Coproducing Health Care Services?

In 2016, Batalden et al proposed a coproduction model for health care services. Starting from the argument that health care services should demonstrate service-dominant rather than goods-dominant logic, they argued that health care outcomes are the result of the intricate interaction of the provider and patient in concert with the system, community, and, ultimately, society. The key notion is that the patient is as much an expert in determining outcomes as the provider, but with different expertise. Patients come to the table with expertise in their lived experiences and the context of their lives.The authors posit that education, like health care services, should follow a service-dominant logic. Like the relationship between patients and providers, the relationship between learner and teacher requires the integrated expertise of each nested in the context of their system, community, and society to optimize outcomes. The authors then argue that health professions learners cannot be educated in a traditional, paternalistic model of education and then expected to practice in a manner that prioritizes coproductive partnerships with colleagues, patients, and families. They stress the necessity of adapting the health care services coproduction model to health professions education. Instead of asking whether the coproduction model is possible in the current system, they argue that the current system is not sustainable and not producing the desired kind of clinicians.A current example from a longitudinal integrated clerkship highlights some possibilities with coproduced education. Finally, the authors offer some practical ways to begin changing from the traditional model. They thus provide a conceptual framework and ideas for practical implementation to move the educational model closer to the coproduction health care services model that many strive for and, through that alignment, to set the stage for improved health outcomes for all.

COproduction VALUE creation in healthcare service (CO-VALUE): an international multicentre protocol to describe the application of a model of value creation for use in systems of coproduced healthcare services and to evaluate the initial feasibility, utility and acceptability of associated system-level value creation assessment approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Coproduction introduces a fundamental shift in how healthcare service is conceptualised. The mechanistic idea of healthcare being a 'product' generated by the healthcare system and delivered to patients is replaced by that of a service co-created by the healthcare system and the users of healthcare services. Fjeldstad et al offer an approach for conceptualising value creation in complex service contexts that we believe is applicable to coproduction of healthcare service. We have adapted Fjeldstad's value creation model based on a detailed case study of a renal haemodialysis service in Jonkoping, Sweden, which demonstrates coproduction characteristics and key elements of Fjeldstad's model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a five-part coproduction value creation model for healthcare service: (1) value chain, characterised by a standardised set of processes that serve a commonly occurring need; (2) value shop, which offers a customised response for unique cases; (3) a facilitated value network, which involves groups of individuals struggling with similar challenges; (4) interconnection between shop, chain and network elements and (5) leadership. We will seek to articulate and assess the value creation model through the work of a community of practice comprised of a diverse international workgroup with representation from executive, financial and clinical leaders as well as other key stakeholders from multiple health systems. We then will conduct pilot studies of a qualitative self-assessment process in participating health systems, and ultimately develop and test quantitative measures for assessing coproduction value creation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health Institutional Review Board (D-HH IRB) as a minimal risk research study. Findings and scholarship will be disseminated broadly through continuous engagement with health system stakeholders, national and international academic presentations and publications and an internet-based electronic platform for publicly accessible study information.