Background
Parent study
Methods
Setting and eligible participants
Data
Chronic Care Model Elements | Fidelity of the CHAPS Model Components to the Chronic Care Model [7] | Fidelity of CHAPS Implementation of CHAPS Model [14] to Hasson’s Model |
---|---|---|
Health System Resources and Policies | ||
5 Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems medical centers | Greater Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Loma Linda, Long Beach, San Diego (Content) | |
Community Resources and Policies | ||
Local/regional/national organizations and services (local APDA, LA-CRC, NPF, and PRO; and other local Parkinson’s disease support groups) | Recommended use of community services (n = 78, 29.5% of all service referrals) (Content) (Frequency) | |
Delivery System Redesign | ||
CHAPS nurse care managers | 8 nurses hired and oriented to deliver CHAPS care management (Content) | |
Parkinson’s disease specialist and CHAPS nurse care manager regularly scheduled huddles | CHAPS nurse care managers reported to principal investigator that huddles occurred monthly (Content) (Frequency) | |
Telephone encounters with participants | n = 656 telephone encounter notes abstracted | |
• n = 68 (prior to Initial CHAPS Assessments) | ||
➢ Initial CHAPS Assessments | • n = 140 (Initial CHAPS Assessments) | |
➢ Follow-up calls | • n = 317 (~ 3 follow-ups per participant) a | |
➢ 6-month reassessments | • n = 67 (6-month reassessment, for 50% of eligible candidates | |
➢ Annual reassessments | • n = 29 (Annual reassessment, for 23% of eligible candidates) | |
• n = 35 (2nd 6-month reassessment at 18-months for 29% of eligible candidates) (Frequency – partial fidelity) (Duration) | ||
Siebens Domain Management Model™ (SDMM™) b as the organizing framework | Domain headings used in documentation of 4870 (97.7%) of CHAPS problems/topics. These distributed over the 4 domains: • Domain I 38.8% • Domain II 27.5% • Domain III 14.3% • Domain IV 19.4% (Content) (Frequency) | |
Siebens Health Care Notebook [18] | • Personalized self-care tool sent to each participant (n = 140) c • Notebook discussed with participants n = 108 (77.1%) (Content) (Frequency) | |
Decision Support | ||
31 standard CHAPS problems/topics identified through algorithms | Problems/topic types were documented (n = 4938) (Content) (Frequency) | |
CHAPS problem/topic intervention protocols with care recommendations d | CHAPS nurse care manager activities (n = 4012) (27 types) (Content) (Frequency) | |
CHAPS nurse care manager meetings | Meetings twice a month for mutual support and clinical problem-solving (Content) (Frequency) | |
Decision support provided by Parkinson’s disease specialists directly to CHAPS nurse care managers through huddles | CHAPS nurse care managers reported to principal investigator huddles occurred monthly (Content) (Frequency) | |
Clinical Information Systems | ||
Computerized Patient Record System - CPRS (Veterans Affairs electronic medical record for inpatient and outpatient services) | CHAPS nurse care manager notes (n = 656) (Content) (Frequency) | |
CHAPS structured Initial Assessment with algorithm-identified CHAPS standard problems/topics in Microsoft Access | CHAPS Assessments (n = 140) and problems/topics identified (Content) (Frequency) | |
Participant panel tracking tool in Microsoft Access | Tool cumbersome and discontinued; alternative secure methods used (Content) | |
Self-management Support | ||
Prioritizing problems/topics with participant input | Most frequent concerns: • medications (n = 58 participants) • physical activity (n = 49 participants) • falls (n = 49 participants) (Content) (Frequency) | |
Coaching by nurse care managers | • Education: verbal (n = 310), print (n = 168), Internet or DVD (n = 68) notes • Counseling and emotional support (n = 387 notes) • Motivational collaborative-problem solving (n = 144 notes) (Content) (Frequency) | |
Siebens Health Care Notebook | • Participants (n = 83, 59.3%) interacted with Notebook • Problem-focused education sheets (n = 2.6 (SD 2.4)) added from 69 unique education sheets (Content) (Frequency) | |
My HealtheVet (online tool for partnering with health care team with secure messaging) | Referral to My HealtheVet patient portal (n = 23 notes) (Content) (Frequency) |
Potential Moderator Types | CHAPS Implementation |
---|---|
Participant Responsiveness (i.e., individuals receiving and individuals delivering CHAPS) | ◆ Patient/participants’ survey responses about CHAPS [20] • Positive (n = 246, 74%) • Neutral (n = 53, 16%) • Negative (n = 35, 10%) ◆ Patient/participants’ usability survey responses about the CHAPS Initial Assessment [20] • Positive (n = 51, 81%) • Neutral (n = 11, 17%) • Negative (n = 1, 2%) ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager survey responses noting specific program benefits [20] • Yes (n = 72, 74%) • Unsure (n = 19, 20%) • No (n = 6, 6%) ◆ Parkinson’s disease specialist survey responses noting specific program benefits [20] • Yes (n = 107, 77%) • Unsure (n = 30, 21%) • No (n = 3, 2%) ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager usability survey responses to Siebens Domain Management Model™ [20] • Facilitators in using the Model (n = 55, 65%) • Challenges in using a new Model (n = 29, 35%) ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager usability survey responses to the self-care Notebook [20] • Facilitators for coaching about the Notebook (n = 46, 62%) • Challenges to coaching about the Notebook (n = 28, 38%) ◆ Patient/participant reported feedback on Notebook to CHAPS nurse care managers [20] • Notebook assets (n = 97, 67%) • Notebook review deferred (n = 28,19%) • Reasons for not using Notebook (n = 19,13%) ◆ Principal Investigator observed CHAPS nurse care managers actively using CHAPS tools ◆ Neurology clinic physician assistant appreciated participants’ Notebooks |
Comprehensiveness of policy description (i.e., CHAPS protocol) | ◆ CHAPS intervention protocol published [7] ◆ Intervention implementation details published [14] ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager orientation (10–40 h) [14] ◆ Parkinson’s disease specialist & administrative staff orientation (1 h) [14] ◆ Content of CHAPS Nurse Care Manager Binder (7 sections) [14] ◆ Neurology leadership informed in person about CHAPS protocol (1 h) [14] |
Strategies to facilitate implementation (i.e., supports for delivering CHAPS components) | ◆ Print and online version of CHAPS Nurse Care Manager Binder [14] ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager hands-on practice of CHAPS Initial Assessment and Notebook during orientation [14] ◆ Principal Investigator (nurse researcher) was available and provided feedback on documentation and care management ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager conference calls twice monthly, then monthly – reported to Principal Investigator ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager huddles with Parkinson’s disease specialists monthly – reported to Principal Investigator [14] |
Quality of delivery (i.e., extent to which provider (CHAPS) approaches theoretical ideals) | ◆ Fidelity to Chronic Care Model achieved (Table 1) ◆ 5 patient-centered steps of the Nursing Process documented [14] a ◆ 5 intervention protocol steps to address problems/topics utilized [14] b ◆ Evidence-based Organizing Framework, Siebens Domain Management Model™ for holistic care management actively used [14] ◆ 140 (100%) of participants were provided 3-ringed binder self-care tool Notebook to encourage self-management [14] ◆ Nurse care managers discussed Notebook with participants (n = 108, 77%) ◆ CHAPS nurse care managers reported and documented participant self-care actions [14] • I Medically-focused (n = 239) • II Mentally/emotionally/coping-focused (n = 871) • III Functionally-focused (n = 196) • IV Environmentally-focused (n = 29) ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager and Parkinson’s disease specialist communicated regularly through huddles [14] |
Recruitment including barriers to maintaining involvement of participants | ◆ Recruitment performed through letters and telephone calls ◆ 140 of 162 (86%) of those randomized to intervention received nurse care management [17] ◆ 3 of these 140 (2%) declined after care management started [14] |
Context (economic, organizational, community) | ◆ Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development, Nursing Research Initiative funded the CHAPS trial ◆ Veterans Affairs open to quality of care improvement initiatives ◆ Veterans willing to participate in research ◆ Relationships with local community organizations (e.g., Parkinson’s support groups) ◆ Unable to incorporate CHAPS Initial Assessment and algorithms in electronic medical record (Computerized Personal Record System), requiring separate software ◆ Primary barrier to full intervention implementation was maintaining sufficient nurse care manager staffing due to Veterans Affairs hiring freeze in setting of normal turnover [14] |
Analyses
Challenges | Examples of CHAPS Addressing the Challenges ◆ Quality and Extent of Implementation [14] ○ Stakeholder Perceptions [20] |
---|---|
THEME 1: UNMET NEEDS (IDENTIFIED BY PATIENT AND/OR CARE PARTNER) | |
◆ Emotional support through CHAPS nurse care manager coaching ◆ Participants attended support groups | |
○ Participants felt they could talk to their nurse care manager | |
◆ CHAPS nurse care managers: • Provided CHAPS Assessment-driven education (verbal, written, digital) • Recommended specific care interventions • Personalized participant Notebook [18] with tailored education sheets ◆ Participants read specific nurse care manager-supplied materials | |
○ Participants liked the Notebook feature of education sheets | |
Coping with multiple changes in care (unpaid care needs, medications, adaptive equipment) [33] | ◆ Motivational collaborative problem-solving ◆ CHAPS nurse care manager coaching |
○ Participants reported CHAPS nurse care managers helped them manage their Parkinson’s disease and their health overall | |
◆ CHAPS nurse care managers coached participants on self-care including My HealtheVet and Notebook use ◆ Participant self-care actions and interactions with Notebook were documented | |
○ Participants reported: • Medication self-management • Knowing about Parkinson’s disease and when to contact Parkinson’s disease specialists • Notebook benefits (helpful, useful, organizes information) ○ Parkinson’s disease specialists reported participant self-management improvement | |
More active role in decision-making [35] | ◆ Participants prioritized problems with CHAPS nurse care manager ◆ Collaborative problem-solving occurred ◆ Participants prepared for provider appointments |
○ Participants felt they could talk to their nurse care manager | |
◆ CHAPS nurse care managers: • Made follow up telephone calls to participants • Discussed Understanding Parkinson’s Disease, Preferences/Long term care planning, End of Life Resources a • Added education sheets on above issues to personalized Notebooks ◆ Participants completed advance directive/power of attorney for health care | |
○ Parkinson’s disease specialist appreciated nurse care manager spending more time talking to patients than is available in clinic | |
THEME 2: SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVIDERS (IDENTIFIED BY PATIENT AND/OR CARE PARTNER) | |
◆ CHAPS nurse care managers: • Problem-solved collaboratively with participants • Initiated care coordination and discussed multidisciplinary referrals • Recommended topic/intervention to discuss with provider | |
○ Parkinson’s disease specialists noted helpfulness of the nurse care manager role | |
◆ Continuity achieved for some but not all participants; continuity interrupted by normal turnover complicated by hiring freezes | |
○ CHAPS nurse care managers noted consistent staffing is needed to build trust, facilitate collaboration, foster behavioral change, and support Notebook use | |
Better interdisciplinary collaboration [34] | ◆Facilitation of interdisciplinary communication using the Siebens Domain Management Model b ◆ Care coordination through warm hand-offs ◆Monthly clinical huddles between nurse care managers and Parkinson’s disease specialists ◆ Participants taking Notebook to provider appointments |
○ Parkinson’s disease specialists reported CHAPS nurse care managers recommended care suggestions they agreed with (e.g., in clinical huddles, in documentation) | |
Competent, professional practice [32] | ◆Structured CHAPS Assessment with algorithms (embedded triggers) for problem/topic identification ◆ Scheduled follow-up telephone calls for follow-through and proactive care ◆ Problem/topic specific intervention protocols c |
○ CHAPS nurse care managers gained knowledge/understanding about Parkinson’s disease ○ Parkinson’s disease specialists reported CHAPS nurse care managers provided relevant information and paid attention to detail | |
THEME 3: PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS NEEDING CONSIDERATION | |
◆ CHAPS Assessment with embedded triggers for identification of problems/topics and their range of severity (e.g., physician referral for higher severity) ◆ Problems/topics spanning early, mid to advanced Parkinson’s disease (e.g., Driving, Psychosis/Hallucinations a) | |
○ CHAPS nurse care managers agreed with care suggestions recommended by CHAPS Assessment (triggered by algorithms) | |
As disease progresses, anticipation of needs is required [33] | ◆ Proactive telephone calls over time ◆ CHAPS 6-month review and annual reassessments to screen for evolving problems |
○ Participants aware of what Parkinson’s disease symptoms to watch for | |
THEME 4: STANDARDIZING MODELS FOR PARKINSON’S CARE MANAGEMENT | |
◆ CHAPS Assessment with algorithms ◆ Siebens Domain Management Model b ◆ Participants prioritized problems with CHAPS nurse care manager ◆ Problem/topic-specific intervention protocols c ◆ Monthly clinical huddles of CHAPS nurse care managers and Parkinson’s disease specialists ◆ My HealtheVet and Notebooks for self-care and team communication ◆ Care partner included at participant’s request ◆ Referrals to and collaboration with other disciplines ◆ Communication through one shared electronic medical record | |
○ Overall stakeholder perceptions of CHAPS and its components were positive ○ Parkinson’s disease specialists and nurse care managers endorsed CHAPS (e.g., would refer other patients) | |
◆CHAPS nurse care manager elicited participant concerns about CHAPS problems/topics and other medical problems | |
○ Participants felt they could talk to the nurse care manager about their condition ○ Participant preferences guided Notebook coaching | |
◆ Care partners participated in telephone calls and care coordination at participant request ◆ Participants showed Notebook to care partner ◆ Caregiver Packets sent d | |
○ Care partner responses to the Notebook included being impressed and reporting it was helpful/organized |