Exploring quality improvement for diabetes care in First Nations communities in Canada: a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous peoples in Canada experience higher rates of diabetes and worse outcomes than non-Indigenous populations in Canada. Strategies are needed to address underlying health inequities and improve access to quality diabetes care. As part of the national FORGE AHEAD Research Program, this study explores two primary healthcare teams' quality improvement (QI) process of developing and implementing strategies to improve the quality of diabetes care in First Nations communities in Canada. METHODS: This study utilized a community-based participatory and qualitative case study methodology. Multiple qualitative data sources were analyzed to understand: (1) how knowledge and information was used to inform the teams' QI process; (2) how the process was influenced by the context of primary care services within communities; and (3) the factors that supported or hindered their QI process. RESULTS: The findings of this study demonstrate how teams drew upon multiple sources of knowledge and information to inform their QI work, the importance of strengthening relationships and building relationships with the community, the influence of organizational support and capacity, and the key factors that facilitated QI efforts. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the ongoing calls for research in understanding the process and factors affecting the implementation of QI strategies, particularly within Indigenous communities. The knowledge generated may help inform community action and the future development, implementation and scale-up of QI programs in Indigenous communities in Canada and globally.

Continuing to enhance the quality of case study methodology in health services research.

Case study methodology has grown in popularity within Health Services Research (HSR). However, its use and merit as a methodology are frequently criticized due to its flexible approach and inconsistent application. Nevertheless, case study methodology is well suited to HSR because it can track and examine complex relationships, contexts, and systems as they evolve. Applied appropriately, it can help generate information on how multiple forms of knowledge come together to inform decision-making within healthcare contexts. In this article, we aim to demystify case study methodology by outlining its philosophical underpinnings and three foundational approaches. We provide literature-based guidance to decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in and critically appraise case study design. We advocate that researchers work in collaboration with health leaders to detail their research process with an aim of strengthening the validity and integrity of case study for its continued and advanced use in HSR.

National Survey of Indigenous primary healthcare capacity and delivery models in Canada: the TransFORmation of IndiGEnous PrimAry HEAlthcare delivery (FORGE AHEAD) community profile survey.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant deficiency of national health information for Indigenous peoples in Canada. This manuscript describes the Community Profile Survey (CPS), a community-based, national-level survey designed to identify and describe existing healthcare delivery, funding models, and diabetes specific infrastructure and programs in Indigenous communities. METHODS: The CPS was developed collaboratively through FORGE AHEAD and the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada. Regional and federal engagement and partnerships were built with Indigenous organizations to establish regionally-tailored distribution of the 8-page CPS to 440 First Nations communities. Results were collected (one survey per community) and reported in strata by region, with descriptive analyses performed on all variables. Results were shared with participating communities and regional/federal partners through tailored reports. RESULTS: A total of 84 communities completed the survey (19% response rate). The majority of communities had a health centre/office to provide service to their patients with diabetes, with limited on-reserve hospitals for ambulatory or case-sensitive conditions. Few healthcare specialists were located on-site, with patients frequently travelling off-site (> 40 km) for diabetes-related complications. The majority of healthcare professionals on-site were Health Directors, Community Health Nurses, and Home Care Nurses. Many communities had a diabetes registry but few reported a diabetes surveillance system. Regional variation in healthcare services, diabetes programs, and funding models were noted, with most communities engaging in some type of innovative strategy to improve care for patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The CPS is the first community-based, national-level survey of its kind in Canada. Although the response rate was low, the CPS was distributed and successfully administered across a broad range of First Nations communities, and future considerations would benefit from a governance structure and leadership that strengthens community engagement, and a longitudinal research approach to increase the representativeness of the data. This type of information is important for communities and regions to inform decision making (maintain successes, and identify areas for improvement), strengthen health service delivery and infrastructure, increase accessibility to healthcare personnel, and allocate funding and/or resources to build capacity and foster a proactive chronic disease prevention and management approach for Indigenous communities across Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current ClinicalTrial.gov protocol ID NCT02234973 . Registered: September 9, 2014.

Improving chronic care through continuing education of interprofessional primary healthcare teams: a process evaluation.

Process evaluations assess program structures and implementation processes so that outcomes can be accurately interpreted. This article reports the results of a process evaluation of Partnerships for Health, an initiative targeting interprofessional primary healthcare teams to improve chronic care in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Program documentation, participant observation, and in-depth interviews were used to capture details about the program structure, implementation process, and experience of implementers and participants. Results suggest that the intended program was modified during implementation to better meet the needs of participants and to overcome participation barriers. Elements of program activities perceived as most effective included series of off-site learning/classroom sessions, practice-based/workplace information-technology (IT) support, and practice coaching because they provided: dedicated time to learn how to improve chronic care; team-building/networking within and across teams; hands-on IT training/guidance; and flexibility to meet individual practice needs. This process evaluation highlighted key program activities that were essential to the continuing education (CE) of interprofessional primary healthcare teams as they attempted to transform primary healthcare to improve chronic care.

The Diabetes Evaluation Framework for Innovative National Evaluations (DEFINE): Construct and Content Validation Using a Modified Delphi Method.

OBJECTIVES: In order to scale-up successful innovations, more evidence is needed to evaluate programs that attempt to address the rising prevalence of diabetes and the associated burdens on patients and the healthcare system. This study aimed to assess the construct and content validity of the Diabetes Evaluation Framework for Innovative National Evaluations (DEFINE), a tool developed to guide the evaluation, design and implementation with built-in knowledge translation principles. METHODS: A modified Delphi method, including 3 individual rounds (questionnaire with 7-point agreement/importance Likert scales and/or open-ended questions) and 1 group round (open discussion) were conducted. Twelve experts in diabetes, research, knowledge translation, evaluation and policy from Canada (Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia) and Australia participated. Quantitative consensus criteria were an interquartile range of ≤1. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically and confirmed by participants. An importance scale was used to determine a priority multi-level indicator set. Items rated very or extremely important by 80% or more of the experts were reviewed in the final group round to build the final set. RESULTS: Participants reached consensus on the content and construct validity of DEFINE, including its title, overall goal, 5-step evaluation approach, medical and nonmedical determinants of health schematics, full list of indicators and associated measurement tools, priority multi-level indicator set and next steps in DEFINE's development. CONCLUSIONS: Validated by experts, DEFINE has the right theoretic components to evaluate comprehensively diabetes prevention and management programs and to support acquisition of evidence that could influence the knowledge translation of innovations to reduce the burden of diabetes.

Impact of a primary healthcare quality improvement program on diabetes in Canada: evaluation of the Quality Improvement and Innovation Partnership (QIIP).

OBJECTIVE: Primary healthcare (PHC) quality improvement (QI) initiatives are designed to improve patient care and health outcomes. We evaluated the Quality Improvement and Innovation Partnership (QIIP), an Ontario-wide PHC QI program on access to care, diabetes management and colorectal cancer screening. This manuscript highlights the impact of QIIP on diabetes outcomes and associated vascular risk factors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cluster matched-control, retrospective prechart and postchart audit was conducted. One physician per QIIP-PHC team (N=34) and control (N=34) were recruited for the audit. Eligible charts were reviewed for prespecified type 2 diabetes mellitus clinical process and outcome data at baseline, during (intervention range: 15-17.5 months) and post. Primary outcome measures were the A1c of patients above study target and proportion of patients with an annual foot exam. Secondary outcome measures included glycemic, hypertension and lipid outcomes and management, screening for diabetes-related complications, healthcare utilization, and diabetes counseling, education and self-management goal setting. RESULTS: More patients in the QIIP group achieved statistically improved lipid testing, eye examinations, peripheral neuropathy exams, and documented body mass index. No statistical differences in A1c, low-density lipoprotein or systolic/diastolic blood pressure values were noted, with no significant differences in medication prescription, specialist referrals, or chart-reported diabetes counseling, education or self-management goals. Patients of QIIP physicians had significantly more PHC visits. CONCLUSION: The QIIP-learning collaborative program evaluation using stratified random selection of participants and the inclusion of a control group makes this one of the most rigorous and promising efforts to date evaluating the impact of a QI program in PHC. The chart audit component of this evaluation highlighted that while QIIP improved some secondary diabetes measures, no improvements in clinical outcomes were noted. This study highlights the importance of formalized evaluation of QI initiatives to provide an evidence base to inform future program planning and scale-up.

Influence of a quality improvement learning collaborative program on team functioning in primary healthcare.

Quality improvement (QI) programs are frequently implemented to support primary healthcare (PHC) team development and to improve care outcomes. In Ontario, Canada, the Quality Improvement and Innovation Partnership (QIIP) offered a learning collaborative (LC) program to support the development of interdisciplinary team function and improve chronic disease management, disease prevention, and access to care. A qualitative study using a phenomenological approach was conducted as part of a mixed-method evaluation to explore the influence of the program on team functioning in participating PHC teams. A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify PHC teams (n = 10), from which participants of different professional roles were selected through a purposeful recruitment process to reflect maximum variation of team roles. Additionally, QI coaches working with the interview participants and the LC administrators were also interviewed. Data were collected through semistructured telephone interviews that were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted through an iterative and interpretive approach. The shared experience of participating in the program appeared to improve team functioning. Participants described increased trust and respect for each other's clinical and administrative roles and were inspired by learning about different approaches to interdisciplinary care. This appeared to enhance collegial relationships, collapse professional silos, improve communication, and increase interdisciplinary collaboration. Teamwork involves more than just physically grouping healthcare providers from multiple disciplines and mandating them to work together. The LC program provided opportunities for participants to learn how to work collaboratively, and participation in the LC program appeared to enhance team functioning.

Impact of a quality improvement program on primary healthcare in Canada: a mixed-method evaluation.

PURPOSE: Rigorous comprehensive evaluations of primary healthcare (PHC) quality improvement (QI) initiatives are lacking. This article describes the evaluation of the Quality Improvement and Innovation Partnership Learning Collaborative (QIIP-LC), an Ontario-wide PHC QI program targeting type 2 diabetes management, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, access to care, and team functioning. METHODS: This article highlights the primary outcome results of an external retrospective, multi-measure, mixed-method evaluation of the QIIP-LC, including: (1) matched-control pre-post chart audit of diabetes management (A1c/foot exams) and rate of CRC screening; (2) post-only advanced access survey (third-next available appointment); and (3) post-only semi-structured interviews (team functioning). RESULTS: Chart audit data was collected from 34 consenting physicians per group (of which 88% provided access data). Between-group differences were not statistically significant (A1c [p=0.10]; foot exams [p=0.45]; CRC screening [p=0.77]; advanced access [p=0.22]). Qualitative interview (n=42) themes highlighted the success of the program in helping build interdisciplinary team functioning and capacity. CONCLUSION: The rigorous design and methodology of the QIIP-LC evaluation utilizing a control group is one of the most significant efforts thus far to demonstrate the impact of a QI program in PHC, with improvements over time in both QIIP and control groups offering a likely explanation for the lack of statistically significant primary outcomes. Team functioning was a key success, with team-based chronic care highlighted as pivotal for improved health outcomes. Policy makers should strive to endorse QI programs with proven success through rigorous evaluation to ensure evidence-based healthcare policy and funding.

Results of a mixed-methods evaluation of partnerships for health: a quality improvement initiative for diabetes care.

PURPOSE: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives have been implemented to facilitate transition to a chronic disease management approach in primary health care. However, the effect of QI initiatives on diabetes clinical processes and outcomes remains unclear. This article reports the effect of Partnerships for Health, a QI program implemented in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, on diabetes clinical process and outcome measures and describes program participants' views of elements that influenced their ability to reach desired improvements. METHODS: Part of an external, concurrent, comprehensive, mixed-methods evaluation of Partnerships for Health, a before/after audit of 30 charts of patient of program physicians (n = 35) and semistructured interviews with program participants (physicians and allied health providers) were conducted. RESULTS: The proportion of patients (n = 998) with a documented test/examination for the following clinical processes significantly improved (P ≤ .005): glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), cholesterol, albumin-to-creatinine ratio, serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, electrocardiogram, foot/eye/neuropathy examination, body mass index, waist circumference, and depression screening. Data showed intensification of treatment and significant improvement in the number of patients at target for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and blood pressure (BP) (P ≤ .001). Mean LDL and BP values decreased significantly (P ≤ .01), and an analysis of patients above glycemic targets (A1c >7% at baseline) showed a significant decrease in mean A1c values (P ≤ .01). Interview participants (n = 55) described using a team approach, improved collaborative and proactive care through better tracking of patient data, and increased patient involvement as elements that positively influenced clinical processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: QI initiatives like Partnerships for Health can result in improved diabetes clinical process and outcome measures in primary health care.