Examining changes in interprofessional attitudes associated with virtual interprofessional training.

Interprofessional care is essential in healthcare, but prior work has shown that physicians and nurses tend to have different perceptions about working interprofessionally (interprofessional attitudes). Although training has been shown to improve interprofessional attitudes, providing traditional face to face training is logistically challenging in the healthcare setting. The current study examined whether a virtual interprofessional training program could improve interprofessional attitudes for nurses and physicians. Among a sample of 35 physicians and nurses, results suggested that engagement in a virtual interprofessional training program was associated with improvements in interprofessional attitudes (i.e., perceived ability to work with, value in working with, and comfort in working with other professions) (p = .002), with attitudes improving an average of 0.25 points on a six-point scale (Cohen's d = 0.52). As a secondary aim, results showed that the magnitude of change in interprofessional attitudes did not differ significantly between physicians and nurses. Altogether, results suggest that virtual interprofessional training appears to be a suitable way to begin to improve interprofessional attitudes for both physicians and nurses.

Lost in Transition: Missed Opportunities for the 4 Ms to Support Post-Acute Care Transitions.

Thousands of health systems have adopted the 4 Ms framework, a set of evidence-based practices specific to older adults, as part of the Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) initiative. However, implementation efforts have largely been setting-specific and approaches to achieve continuity of the 4 Ms during care transitions are nascent. Transitions from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are one type of care transition that would greatly benefit from continuity of 4 Ms practices. Drawing from the authors' insights and 5 exploratory interviews at 3 health systems that implemented the 4 Ms in the inpatient setting, we describe a set of current-state challenges when trying to extend specific inpatient 4 Ms practices (eg, deprescribing of high-risk medications) as well as the nuanced understanding of the individual's clinical trajectory developed during an inpatient stay. We also offer concrete opportunities, such as developing 4 Ms-centric discharge summary templates, to address the challenges. With the large investment in AFHS transformation and associated efforts to implement the 4 Ms framework in all care settings used by older adults, it is critical to raise awareness of the specific obstacles to promoting continuity of successful 4 Ms practices during care transitions and work to overcome them. Our insights from hospital-to-SNF transitions offer a starting point.

Patient-reported distress at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are conducted by health systems to improve patient-centered care. Studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic poses unique stressors for patients with cancer. This study investigates change in self-reported global health scores in patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this single-institution retrospective cohort study, patients who completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) at a comprehensive cancer center before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified. Surveys were analyzed to assess change in the global mental health (GMH) and global physical health (GPH) scores at different time periods (pre-COVID: 3/1/5/2019-3/15/2020, surge1: 6/17/2020-9/7/2020, valley1: 9/8/2020-11/16/2020, surge2: 11/17/2020-3/2/2021, and valley2: 3/3/2021-6/15/2021). A total of 25,192 surveys among 7209 patients were included in the study. Mean GMH score for patients before the COVID-19 pandemic (50.57) was similar to those during various periods during the pandemic: surge1 (48.82), valley1 (48.93), surge2 (48.68), valley2 (49.19). Mean GPH score was significantly higher pre-COVID (42.46) than during surge1 (36.88), valley1 (36.90), surge2 (37.33) and valley2 (37.14). During the pandemic, mean GMH (49.00) and GPH (37.37) scores obtained through in-person were similar to mean GMH (48.53) and GPH (36.94) scores obtained through telehealth. At this comprehensive cancer center, patients with cancer reported stable mental health and deteriorating physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic as indicated by the PROMIS survey. Modality of the survey (in-person versus telehealth) did not affect scores.

Health system approaches and experiences implementing the 4Ms: Insights from 3 early adopter health systems.

BACKGROUND: Redesigning the healthcare system to consistently provide effective and tailored care to older adults is needed. The 4Ms (What Matters, Mobility, Medication, and Mentation) offer a framework to guide health systems' efforts to deliver Age-Friendly care. We use an implementation science framework to characterize and assess real-world implementation experiences with the 4Ms across varied health systems. METHODS: With expert input, we selected three health systems that were early adopters of the 4Ms and engaged in different implementation support models through the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders from each site. Stakeholders ranged from hospital leadership to frontline clinicians. Interviews covered each site's approach to and experiences with implementation, including facilitators and barriers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We characterized each site's implementation decisions and then inductively identified overarching themes and subthemes with supporting quotes. RESULTS: Health systems varied in their implementation approach, including the implementation order of each of the 4Ms. We identified three overarching themes: (1) the 4Ms offered a compelling conceptual framework for advancing Age-Friendly care, but implementation was complex and fragmented; (2) complete and sustained implementation of the 4Ms required multidisciplinary and multilevel leadership and engagement; (3) strategies that facilitate implementation success and support frontline culture change included top-down communication and infrastructure alongside hands-on clinical education and support. Common barriers are siloed implementation efforts across settings that impeded synergies and scaling; disengaged physicians; and difficulty implementing What Matters in a meaningful way. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other implementation studies, we identified multifactorial domains impacting 4Ms implementation. To achieve Age-Friendly transformation, health systems must plan for and attend to multiple phases of implementation while ensuring that the work coheres under a unified vision that spans disciplines and settings.