Strategies to Improve Perioperative Palliative Care Integration for Seriously Ill Veterans.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients are at higher risk for adverse surgical outcomes. Palliative care (PC) interventions for seriously ill surgical patients are associated with improved quality of patient care and patient-centered outcomes, yet, they are underutilized perioperatively. OBJECTIVES: To identify strategies for improving perioperative PC integration for seriously ill Veterans from the perspectives of PC providers and surgeons. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, in-depth individual and group interviews with Veteran Health Administration PC team members and surgeons between July 2020 and April 2021. Participants were purposively sampled from high- and low-collaboration sites based on the proportion of received perioperative palliative consults. We performed a team-based thematic analysis with dual coding (inter-rater reliability above 0.8). RESULTS: Interviews with 20 interdisciplinary PC providers and 13 surgeons at geographically distributed Veteran Affairs sites converged on four strategies for improving palliative care integration and goals of care conversations in the perioperative period: 1) develop and maintain collaborative, trusting relationships between palliative care providers and surgeons; 2) establish risk assessment processes to identify patients who may benefit from a PC consult; 3) involve both PC providers and surgeons at the appropriate time in the perioperative workflow; 4) provide sufficient resources to allow for an interdisciplinary sharing of care. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that individual, programmatic, and organizational efforts could facilitate interservice collaboration between PC clinicians and surgeons.

Facilitators of palliative care quality improvement team cohesion: Lessons from a seven-site implementation project in India.

BACKGROUND: The Palliative Care: Promoting Access and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) initiative is a team-based, palliative care (PC) quality improvement (QI) project working to promote high-quality PC in India. As a PC QI initiative, PC-PAICE implementation relied upon building interdisciplinary teams, providing the ideal context for understanding facilitators of team cohesion that compelled clinical, organizational, and administrative team members to work together. There is an opportunity to leverage the intersection between QI implementation and organizational theory to inform and improve implementation science. PURPOSE: As a subaim of a larger implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators of team cohesion within QI implementation context. METHODOLOGY: A quota sampling approach captured the perspectives of 44 stakeholders across three strata (organizational leaders, clinical leaders, and clinical team members) from all seven sites through a semistructured interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used a combination of inductive and deductive approaches informed by organizational theory to identify facilitators. RESULT: We identified three facilitators of PC team cohesion: (a) balancing formalization and flexibility around team roles, (b) establishing widespread awareness of the QI project, and (c) prioritizing a nonhierarchical organizational culture. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Leveraging CFIR to analyze PC-PAICE stakeholder interviews created a data set conducive to understanding complex multisite implementation. Layering role and team theory to our implementation analysis helped us identify facilitators of team cohesion across levels within the team (bounded team), beyond the team (teaming), and surrounding the team (culture). These insights demonstrate the value of team and role theories in implementation evaluation efforts.

Quality Improvement in Itself Changes Your Thinking: Lessons From Disseminating Quality Improvement Methods Through a Multisite International Collaborative Palliative Care Project in India.

PURPOSE: Seven major palliative care (PC) centers in India were mentored through the Palliative Care-Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) by US and Australian academic institutions to implement a quality improvement (QI) project to improve the accessibility and quality of PC at their respective centers. The objective was to evaluate the experiences of teams in implementing QI methods across diverse geographical settings in India. METHODS: A quota sampling approach was used to elicit perspectives of local stakeholders at each site. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed development of a semistructured interview guide. Analysis leveraged deductive and inductive approaches. RESULTS: We interviewed 44 participants (eight organizational leaders, 12 clinical leaders, and 24 team members) at seven sites and identified five themes. (1) Implementing QI methods enabled QI teams to think analytically to solve a complex problem and to identify resources. (2) Developing a problem statement by identifying specific gaps in patient care fostered team collaboration toward a common goal. (3) Making use of QI tools (eg, A3 process) systematically provided a new, straightforward QI toolkit and improved QI teams' conceptual understanding. (4) Enhancing stakeholder engagement allowed shared understanding of QI team members' roles and processes and shaped interventions tailored to the local context. (5) Designing less subjective processes for patient care such as assessment scales to identify patient's symptomatic needs positively changed work practices and culture. CONCLUSION: Engaging and empowering multiple stakeholders to use QI methods facilitated the expansion and improvement of PC and cancer services in India. PC-PAICE demonstrated an efficient, effective way to apply QI methods in an international context. The impact of PC-PAICE is being magnified by developing a cadre of Indian QI leaders.

Promising Strategies to Support COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: Qualitative Insights from the VHA National Implementation.

BACKGROUND: In August 2021, up to 30% of Americans were uncertain about taking the COVID-19 vaccine, including some healthcare personnel (HCP). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify barriers and facilitators of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) HCP vaccination program. DESIGN: We conducted key informant interviews with employee occupational health (EOH) providers, using snowball recruitment. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 43 VHA EOH providers representing 29 of VHA's regionally diverse healthcare systems. APPROACH: Thematic analysis elucidated 5 key themes and specific strategies recommended by EOH. KEY RESULTS: Implementation themes reflected logistics of distribution (supply), addressing any vaccine concerns or hesitancy (demand), and learning health system strategies/approaches for shared learnings. Specifically, themes included the following: (1) use interdisciplinary task forces to leverage diverse skillsets for vaccine implementation; (2) invest in processes and align resources with priorities, including creating detailed processes, addressing time trade-offs for personnel involved in vaccine clinics by suspending everything non-essential, designating process/authority to shift personnel where needed, and proactively involving leaders to support resource allocation/alignment; (3) expect and accommodate vaccine buy-in occurring over time: prepare for some HCP's slow buy-in, align buy-in facilitation with identities and motivation, and encourage word-of-mouth and hyper-local testimonials; (4) overcome misinformation with trustworthy communication: tailor communication to individuals and address COVID vaccines "in every encounter," leverage proactive institutional messaging to reinforce information, and invite bi-directional conversations about any vaccine concerns. A final overarching theme focused on learning health system needs and structures: (5) use existing and newly developed communication channels to foster shared learning across teams and sites. CONCLUSIONS: Expecting deliberation allows systems to prepare for complex distribution logistics (supply) and make room for conversations that are trustworthy, bi-directional, and identity aligned (demand). Ideally, organizations provide time for conversations that address individual concerns, foster bi-directional shared decision-making, respect HCP beliefs and identities, and emphasize shared identities as healthcare providers.

Teaming in Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Interventions in Primary Care: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.