Rapid implementation of remote digital primary care in Stockholm and implications for further system-wide implementation: practitioner's and manager's experience of the Always Open mobile application.

OBJECTIVE: To contribute actionable knowledge how to increase appropriate use of digital technologies in primary care by understanding clinical managers experiences with a digital connection system, Always Open, during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: The overall design was a qualitative study with directed content analysis method. Data were collected from documents and focus group (n = 12) interviews with clinical managers (n = 99) of primary care. The seven domains of the Non-adoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework was used to understand the implementation process, as described by the clinical managers. RESULTS: Focus group participants reported that their units made their own local decisions to make more use of the technology provided by the health system. Most participants considered that the technology was ready to use, despite some limitations, that included individual clinician's and patient preferences, and how ready their unit was for making changes to practice and organization. Some raised concerns about how standardizing some aspects possibly conflicted with the decentralized management model of the organization. The overall experience was reported to be positive, with an intention to sustain the achievements. CONCLUSION: Focus group interviews found that clinical unit managers reported that they and their staff were positive about the digital technology system for remote care. For the future, they wanted changes to be made at different levels of the health system to better combine digital and physical care. Possibilities to use digital technology to integrate primary and hospital health care were identified.

Rapid adoption of Always Open as a digital connection mHealth system for remote digital care was observed during the pandemic without a structured implementation program.Many factors could explain the rapid adoption and the intention to sustain the use of Always Open such as professional ethics, financial reimbursement, patient needs and support.Standardization needs to be balanced with flexibility to ensure that staff can decide what is appropriate for patients.The general experience was positive and a continual high use of Always Open was reported in units that adopted the system.The decentralized management model may have contributed to the capacity to provide flexible services suited to local needs.

Can systematic implementation support improve programme fidelity by improving care providers' perceptions of implementation factors? A cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Investigations of implementation factors (e.g., collegial support and sense of coherence) are recommended to better understand and address inadequate implementation outcomes. Little is known about the relationship between implementation factors and outcomes, especially in later phases of an implementation effort. The aims of this study were to assess the association between implementation success (measured by programme fidelity) and care providers' perceptions of implementation factors during an implementation process and to investigate whether these perceptions are affected by systematic implementation support. METHODS: Using a cluster-randomized design, mental health clinics were drawn to receive implementation support for one (intervention) and not for another (control) of four evidence-based practices. Programme fidelity and care providers' perceptions (Implementation Process Assessment Tool questionnaire) were scored for both intervention and control groups at baseline, 6-, 12- and 18-months. Associations and group differences were tested by means of descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and confidence interval) and linear mixed effect analysis. RESULTS: Including 33 mental health centres or wards, we found care providers' perceptions of a set of implementation factors to be associated with fidelity but not at baseline. After 18 months of implementation effort, fidelity and care providers' perceptions were strongly correlated (B (95% CI) = .7 (.2, 1.1), p = .004). Care providers perceived implementation factors more positively when implementation support was provided than when it was not (t (140) = 2.22, p = .028). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation support can facilitate positive perceptions among care providers, which is associated with higher programme fidelity. To improve implementation success, we should pay more attention to how care providers constantly perceive implementation factors during all phases of the implementation effort. Further research is needed to investigate the validity of our findings in other settings and to improve our understanding of ongoing decision-making among care providers, i.e., the mechanisms of sustaining the high fidelity of recommended practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03271242 (registration date: 05.09.2017).

Combining Improvement and Implementation Sciences and Practices for the Post COVID-19 Era.

Health services made many changes quickly in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Many more are being made. Some changes were already evaluated, and there are rigorous research methods and frameworks for evaluating their local implementation and effectiveness. But how useful are these methods for evaluating changes where evidence of effectiveness is uncertain, or which need adaptation in a rapidly changing situation? Has implementation science provided implementers with tools for effective implementation of changes that need to be made quickly in response to the demands of the pandemic? This perspectives article describes how parts of the research and practitioner communities can use and develop a combination of implementation and improvement to enable faster and more effective change in the future, especially where evidence of local effectiveness is limited. We draw on previous reviews about the advantages and disadvantages of combining these two domains of knowledge and practice. We describe a generic digitally assisted rapid cycle testing (DA-RCT) approach that combines elements of each in order to better describe a change, monitor outcomes, and make adjustments to the change when implemented in a dynamic environment.

Can management decentralisation resolve challenges faced by healthcare service delivery organisations? Findings for managers and researchers from a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Decentralisation of decision-making from central to lower level organisation has been proposed as a way to increase innovation and make services more responsive to local needs. The purpose of this study was to discover research that can contribute to understanding decentralisation as one strategy for resolving challenges in healthcare service delivery organisations. This scoping review provides examples and research-informed guidance for decentralisation research, planning and implementation. FINDINGS: There is limited empirical research into management decentralisation within primary and community care, but some useful frameworks for assessing and planning decentralisation. Rapid changes are being made to workforce redesign, substitution and patient co-production. Research into such 'micro-decentralisation' is not considered in the decentralisation literature. Neither is how the context of culture, systems and regulations affects implementation of this type of decentralisation. Our recent experience suggests that management decentralisation can enable fast and effective local changes to respond to the evolving Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS COV-2) pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Decentralisation can create conditions that support innovation and improvement locally to develop primary and community care. Managers and policy makers can use an appropriate decentralisation strategy to address challenges in workforce retention and recruitment, rising care demands and expectations of patients. There are opportunities for researchers to provide actionable knowledge about changes in organisations and management which could address current challenges in healthcare.

Learning about improvement to address global health and healthcare challenges-lessons and the future.

This perspectives' paper highlights some of the learning from the seminar that the author considers to have particular relevance for improvement practitioners and for investigators seeking to maximize the usefulness of their investigations. The paper discusses the learning under four themes and also notes the future learning needed to enable faster and lower-cost improvement and innovative methods for this learning. The four themes are: describing and reporting improvement interventions; the theme of increasing our certainty about attributing effects to implemented improvement changes; the theme of generalizing the learning from one investigation or improvement and the theme of learning for sustainment and scale-up. The paper suggests ways to build on what we learned at the seminar to create and enable faster take up of proven improvements by practitioners and healthcare services so as to benefit more patients more quickly in a variety of settings.

Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: how do we learn about improvement?'

A fundamental question for the field of healthcare improvement is the extent to which the results achieved can be attributed to the changes that were implemented and whether or not these changes are generalizable. Answering these questions is particularly challenging because the healthcare context is complex, and the interventions themselves tend to be complex and multi-dimensional. The Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement?' was convened to address questions of attribution, generalizability and rigor, and to think through how to approach these concerns in the field of quality improvement. The Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565 brought together 61 leaders in improvement from 22 countries, including researchers, evaluators and improvers. The primary conclusion that resulted from the session was the need for evaluation to be embedded as an integral part of the improvement. We have invited participants of the seminar to contribute to writing this supplement, which consists of eight articles reflecting insights and learning from the Salzburg Global Seminar. This editorial serves as an introduction to the supplement. The supplement explains results and insights from Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565.

Adapting improvements to context: when, why and how?

There is evidence that practitioners applying quality improvements often adapt the improvement method or the change they are implementing, either unknowingly, or intentionally to fit their service or situation. This has been observed especially in programs seeking to spread or 'scale up' an improvement change to other services. Sometimes their adaptations result in improved outcomes, sometimes they do not, and sometimes they do not have data make this assessment or to describe the adaptation. The purpose of this paper is to summarize key points about adaptation and context discussed at the Salzburg Global Seminar in order to help improvers judge when and how to adapt an improvement change. It aims also to encourage more research into such adaptations to develop our understanding of the when, why and how of effective adaptation and to provide more research informed guidance to improvers.The paper gives examples to illustrate key issues in adaptation and to consider more systematic and purposeful adaptation of improvements so as to increase the chances of achieving improvements in different settings for different participants. We describe methods for assessing whether adaptation is necessary or likely to reduce the effectiveness of an improvement intervention, which adaptations might be required, and methods for collecting data to assess whether the adaptations are successful. We also note areas where research is most needed in order to enable more effective scale up of quality improvements changes and wider take up and use of the methods.

Factors influencing early stage healthcare-academia partnerships.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore factors influencing early implementation and intermediate outcomes of a healthcare-academia partnership in a primary healthcare setting. Design/methodology/approach The Academic Primary Healthcare Network (APHN) initiative was launched in 2011 in Stockholm County, Sweden and included 201 primary healthcare centres. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2013-2014 with all coordinating managers ( n=8) and coordinators ( n=4). A strategic change model framework was used to collect and analyse data. Findings Several factors were identified to aid early implementation: assignment and guidelines that allowed flexibility; supportive management; dedicated staff; facilities that enabled APHN actions to be integrated into healthcare practice; and positive experiences from research and educational activities. Implementation was hindered by: discrepancies between objectives and resources; underspecified guidelines that trigger passivity; limited research and educational activities; a conflicting non-supportive reimbursement system; limited planning; and organisational fragmentation. Intermediate outcomes revealed that various actions, informed by the APHN assignment, were launched in all APHNs. Practical implications The findings can be rendered applicable by preparing stakeholders in healthcare services to optimise early implementation of healthcare-academia partnerships. Originality/value This study increases understanding of interactions between factors that influence early stage partnerships between healthcare services and academia in primary healthcare settings.

Perspectives: answering questions about quality improvement: suggestions for investigators.

'Does it work?' is not the only question that practical improvers have of those investigating of quality improvements. They also want to know, 'Will it work here? What conditions do we need to implement and sustain it? Can we adapt it? How much will it cost and save? Is there enough evidence to spread it?'This perspectives article describes methods that investigators can use to answer these questions about improvement changes and improvement methods. It suggests that one reason why research is underused by improvers is because there is little research that answers these questions that would enable improvers to decide whether or how to implement an improvement in their local setting. It shows improvers that answers are possible and where improvers might find research and reports which answer these questions. It is based on reviews of research and reports about methods for producing valid and actionable knowledge to answer these questions. It describes a new 'quality improvement investigation movement' which is uniting applied researchers and improvers to use innovative methods to answer these questions. These investigators recognize the strengths of the randomized controlled trail method, and how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusions from data generated using lower cost and more timely methods. It emphasizes how investigators can choose a method suited to each question, describe the limitations of the method and communicate to improvers the degree of certainty of their answers to the questions.

Scaling up improvements more quickly and effectively.

Faster and more widespread implementation could help more patients to benefit more quickly from known effective treatments. So could more effective implementation of better assessment methods, service delivery models, treatments and services. Implementation at scale and 'descaling' are ways for hospitals and health systems to respond to rising demands and costs. The paper proposes ways to provide leaders with the information that would help them to decide whether and how to scale up a proven improvement. We draw on our knowledge of the improvement and implementation literature on the subject and on our experience of scale up programs in Kaiser Permanente, in Swedish county health systems, and in international health. We describe a '3S' scale up infrastructure and other ingredients that appear necessary for successful widespread improvement, and list the resources that we have found useful for developing scale up programs. The paper aims to encourage more actionable research into scale up, and shows the opportunities for researchers to both advance implementation and improvement science and contribute to reducing suffering and costs in a more timely and effective way.

Using patient-reported outcome measurement to improve patient care.

Patients at the center of care is often the stated focus of clinicians and healthcare services. The quality and safety movement has shown that effective organization of care is needed, in addition to professional skills. This movement has provided professionals and others with methods to improve both organization and practice for patients. These methods include measurement to give those carrying out improvement feedback about the effects of their changes. New types of measures that enable patients to report treatment outcomes can now be use in quality improvement and quality reporting to bring a renewed focus on making care more patient-centered. Although used for some time in research, these measures are relatively new tools for quality improvement and not all research measures are suitable for everyday feedback or improvement projects. The purpose of the paper is to provide an introduction to the use and value of patient-reported outcome measures in quality improvement and to give practical guidance and resources for using PROMs for quality improvement. It draws on the authors' experiences using patient reported outcomes measures for quality research and improvement and their workshop at the 2016 Tokyo ISQUA conference, as well as on reviews and guidance documents about the use of PROMs. It does not provide a comprehensive and systematic review of research, but an overview and introduction to PROMs for quality improvement.

Bridging the discursive gap between lay and medical discourse in care coordination.

For older people with multiple chronic co-morbidities, strategies to coordinate care depend heavily on information exchange. We analyse the information-sharing difficulties arising from differences between patients' oral narratives and medical sense-making; and whether a modified form of 'narrative medicine' might mitigate them. We systematically compared 66 general practice patients' own narratives of their health problems and care with the contents of their clinical records. Data were collected in England during 2012-13. Patients' narratives differed from the accounts in their medical record, especially the summary, regarding mobility, falls, mental health, physical frailty and its consequences for accessing care. Parts of patients' viewpoints were never formally encoded, parts were lost when clinicians de-coded it, parts supplemented, and sometimes the whole narrative was re-framed. These discrepancies appeared to restrict the patient record's utility even for GPs for the purposes of risk stratification, case management, knowing what other care-givers were doing, and coordinating care. The findings suggest combining the encoding/decoding theory of communication with inter-subjectivity and intentionality theories as sequential, complementary elements of an explanation of how patients communicate with clinicians. A revised form of narrative medicine might mitigate the discursive gap and its consequences for care coordination.

Using implementation tools to design and conduct quality improvement projects for faster and more effective improvement.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to enable improvers to use recent knowledge from implementation science to carry out improvement changes more effectively. It also highlights the importance of converting research findings into practical tools and guidance for improvers so as to make research easier to apply in practice. Design/methodology/approach This study provides an illustration of how a quality improvement (QI) team project can make use of recent findings from implementation research so as to make their improvement changes more effective and sustainable. The guidance is based on a review and synthesis of improvement and implementation methods. Findings The paper illustrates how research can help a quality project team in the phases of problem definition and preparation, in design and planning, in implementation, and in sustaining and spreading a QI. Examples of the use of different ideas and methods are cited where they exist. Research limitations/implications The example is illustrative and there is little limited experimental evidence of whether using all the steps and tools in the one approach proposed do enable a quality team to be more effective. Evidence supporting individual guidance proposals is cited where it exists. Practical implications If the steps proposed and illustrated in the paper were followed, it is possible that quality projects could avoid waste by ensuring the conditions they need for success are in place, and sustain and spread improvement changes more effectively. Social implications More patients could benefit more quickly from more effective implementation of proven interventions. Originality/value The paper is the first to describe how improvement and implementation science can be combined in a tangible way that practical improvers can use in their projects. It shows how QI project teams can take advantage of recent advances in improvement and implementation science to make their work more effective and sustainable.

Comparing and improving chronic illness primary care in Sweden and the USA.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to identify opportunities for improving primary care services for people with chronic illnesses by comparing how Sweden and US services use evidence-based practices (EBPs), including digital health technologies (DHTs). Design/methodology/approach - A national primary healthcare center (PHCC) heads surveys in 2012-2013 carried out in both countries in 2006. Findings - There are large variations between the two countries. The largest, regarding effective DHT use in primary care centers, were that few Swedish primary healthcare compared to US heads reported having reminders or prompts at the point of care (38 percent Sweden vs 84 percent USA), despite Sweden's established electronic medical records (EMR). Swedish heads also reported 30 percent fewer centers receiving laboratory results (67 percent Sweden vs 97 percent USA). Regarding following other EBPs, 70 percent of Swedish center heads reported their physicians had easy access to diabetic patient lists compared to 14 percent in the USA. Most Swedish PHCC heads (96 percent) said they offered same day appointment compared to 36 percent in equivalent US practices. Practical implications - There are opportunities for improvement based on significant differences in effective practices between the countries, which demonstrates to primary care leaders that their peers elsewhere potentially provide better care for people with chronic illnesses. Some improvements are under primary care center control and can be made quickly. There is evidence that people with chronic illnesses in these two countries are suffering unnecessarily owing to primary care staff failing to provide proven EBP, which would better meet patient needs. Public finance has been invested in DHT, which are not being used to their full potential. Originality/value - The study shows the gaps between current and potential proven effective EBPs for services to patients with chronic conditions. Findings suggest possible explanations for differences and practical improvements by comparing the two countries. Many enhancements are low cost and the proportionate reduction in suffering and costs they bring is high.

A patient-centered primary care practice approach using evidence-based quality improvement: rationale, methods, and early assessment of implementation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and their primary care practices are redesigning to achieve goals identified in Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) models such as Veterans Affairs (VA)'s Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). Implementation of these models, however, requires major transformation. Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) is a multi-level approach for supporting organizational change and innovation spread. OBJECTIVE: To describe EBQI as an approach for promoting VA's PACT and to assess initial implementation of planned EBQI elements. DESIGN: Descriptive. PARTICIPANTS: Regional and local interdisciplinary clinical leaders, patient representatives, Quality Council Coordinators, practicing primary care clinicians and staff, and researchers from six demonstration site practices in three local healthcare systems in one VA region. INTERVENTION: EBQI promotes bottom-up local innovation and spread within top-down organizational priorities. EBQI innovations are supported by a research-clinical partnership, use continuous quality improvement methods, and are developed in regional demonstration sites. APPROACH: We developed a logic model for EBQI for PACT (EBQI-PACT) with inputs, outputs, and expected outcomes. We describe implementation of logic model outputs over 18 months, using qualitative data from 84 key stakeholders (104 interviews from two waves) and review of study documents. RESULTS: Nearly all implementation elements of the EBQI-PACT logic model were fully or partially implemented. Elements not fully achieved included patient engagement in Quality Councils (4/6) and consistent local primary care practice interdisciplinary leadership (4/6). Fourteen of 15 regionally approved innovation projects have been completed, three have undergone initial spread, five are prepared to spread, and two have completed toolkits that have been pretested in two to three sites and are now ready for external spread. DISCUSSION: EBQI-PACT has been feasible to implement in three participating healthcare systems in one VA region. Further development of methods for engaging patients in care design and for promoting interdisciplinary leadership is needed.

Guidance for research-practice partnerships (R-PPs) and collaborative research.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence based guidance to researchers and practice personnel about forming and carrying out effective research partnerships. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A review of the literature, interviews and discussions with colleagues in both research and practice roles, and a review of the authors' personal experiences as researchers in partnership research. FINDINGS: Partnership research is, in some respects, a distinct "approach" to research, but there are many different versions. An analysis of research publications and of their research experience led the authors to develop a framework for planning and assessing the partnership research process, which includes defining expected outcomes for the partners, their roles, and steps in the research process. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review and analysis provides guidance that may reduce commonly-reported misunderstandings and help to plan more successful partnerships and projects. It also identifies future research which is needed to define more precisely the questions and purposes for which partnership research is most appropriate, and methods and designs for specific types of partnership research. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: As more research moves towards increased participation of practitioners and patients in the research process, more precise and differentiated understanding of the different partnership approaches is required, and when each is most suitable. This article describes research approaches that have the potential to reduce "the research-practice gap". It gives evidence- and experience-based guidance for choosing and establishing a partnership research process, so as to improve partnership relationship-building and more actionable research.

Rapid response systems, antibiotic stewardship and medication reconciliation: a scoping review on implementation factors, activities and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Many patient safety practices are only partly established in routine clinical care, despite extensive quality improvement efforts. Implementation science can offer insights into how patient safety practices can be successfully adopted. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the literature on implementation of three internationally used safety practices: medication reconciliation, antibiotic stewardship programmes and rapid response systems. We sought to identify the implementation activities, factors and outcomes reported; the combinations of factors and activities supporting successful implementation; and the implications of the current evidence base for future implementation and research. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Education Resources Information Center from January 2011 to March 2023. We included original peer-reviewed research studies or quality improvement reports. We used an iterative, inductive approach to thematically categorise data. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical cluster analyses were performed. RESULTS: From the 159 included studies, eight categories of implementation activities were identified: education; planning and preparation; method-based approach; audit and feedback; motivate and remind; resource allocation; simulation and training; and patient involvement. Most studies reported activities from multiple categories. Implementation factors included: clinical competence and collaboration; resources; readiness and engagement; external influence; organisational involvement; QI competence; and feasibility of innovation. Factors were often suggested post hoc and seldom used to guide the selection of implementation strategies. Implementation outcomes were reported as: fidelity or compliance; proxy indicator for fidelity; sustainability; acceptability; and spread. Most studies reported implementation improvement, hindering discrimination between more or less important factors and activities. CONCLUSIONS: The multiple activities employed to implement patient safety practices reflect mainly method-based improvement science, and to a lesser degree determinant frameworks from implementation science. There seems to be an unexploited potential for continuous adaptation of implementation activities to address changing contexts. Research-informed guidance on how to make such adaptations could advance implementation in practice.

Psychometric properties of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, HSOPSC, applied on a large Swedish health care sample.

BACKGROUND: A Swedish version of the USA Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality "Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture" (S-HSOPSC) was developed to be used in both hospitals and primary care. Two new dimensions with two and four questions each were added as well as one outcome measure. This paper describes this Swedish version and an assessment of its psychometric properties which were tested on a large sample of responses from personnel in both hospital and primary care. METHODS: The questionnaire was mainly administered in web form and 84215 forms were returned (response rate 60%) between 2009 and 2011. Eleven per cent of the responses came from primary care workers and 46% from hospital care workers. The psychometric properties were analyzed using both the total sample and the hospital and primary care subsamples by assessment of construct validity and internal consistency. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory factor (EFA) analyses and internal consistency was established by Cronbachs's α. RESULTS: CFA of the total, hospital and primary care samples generally showed a good fit while the EFA pointed towards a 9-factor model in all samples instead of the 14-dimension S-HSOPSC instrument. Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach's α values above 0.7 in a major part of the dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The S-HSOPSC, consisting of 14 dimensions, 48 items and 3 single-item outcome measures, is used both in hospitals and in primary care settings in Sweden for different purposes. This version of the original American instrument has acceptable construct validity and internal consistency when tested on large datasets of first-time responders from both hospitals and primary care centres. One common instrument for measurements of patient safety culture in both hospitals and primary care settings is an advantage since it enables comparisons between sectors and assessments of national patient safety improvement programs. Future research into this version of the instrument includes comparing results from patient safety culture measurements with other outcomes in relation to safety improvement strategies.