Background
Local and global problems
Intended Improvement
Study purpose
Methods
Setting
Care System Components | Defined via Local Diabetes Care Context | Existing Diabetes Care-Based Practices Pre-SMA (January 2005) |
---|---|---|
Supramacro
| VHA Central Office | Initiatives on outpatient quality with necessity to figure out how to operationalize locally |
Advanced Clinic Access mandate to reduce waiting times; increase efficiency | ||
Chronic Disease Index (a series of performance measures) emerging as a priority | ||
Electronic medical record tracking performance measures & providing feedback | ||
Macro
| Cleveland Dept. of Veterans Affairs Medical Center | Pursue current mandate: Advanced Clinic Access to reduce waiting times for appointments |
Meetings about intermediate diabetes care goals | ||
Wanted updates about how goals were going to be met | ||
Primary care clinics focus on medical training not quality care | ||
Longer-term major construction creating space constraints | ||
Mesosystems
| Primary care clinics | Monthly reports about meeting diabetes care goals |
Monthly clinic meetings review & allocate resources | ||
No formal process to identify and refer high-risk patients | ||
Individual meetings with silo representatives | ||
Go to macro level for change if needed | ||
Other services | Primary care provider is additional signer on notes for patients | |
Clinical pharmacy | Individual referral to education (meds and adherence) | |
Medication algorithms (augment/adjust; problems) | ||
Health Psychologist | Referral to education: Medication adherence; barriers | |
Nursing | Nurse manager meeting & viewed separately | |
Clerks | Make appointments for follow-up/referrals | |
Microsystems
| Individual Units | One-on-one meetings with patient |
Intra-micro
| ~1,500 with A1c > 9% | Come for individual visits (every 3 months recommended) |
Patient
| High-risk | Follow-up with referrals to other services including: |
Pick-up new medications now and then see: | ||
Clinical pharmacist to change medications (1 month) | ||
Lab work prior to next visit | ||
Nurse
| 2 Licensed practical nurses | Take vital signs, updates from patient, etc. |
4 Registered nurses | Provide case management/education as referred | |
Provider
|
Primary care provider with diabetes patient:
| Expected to meet performance measures but limited support |
Worked individually with patient | ||
8 Part-time attendings | Goals A1c < 9%; LDL-cholesterol < 100 mg/dL; systolic blood pressure < 140 mmHg | |
5 Nurse practitioners | Receive scores regarding % of patients meeting goals | |
1 Physician assistant | If patient not meeting measures, then educate patient via: | |
Preceptors (5 new) | Referrals for Consults to one or more (variable) specialists → | |
Residents (60/year) | Nurse; Clinical Pharmacist; Nutritionist; Endocrinologist/Diabetologist | |
Clinic; Health Psychologist ; Diabetes Self-management classes | ||
*Primary focus: medications to get to goal
|
Planning the intervention
Planning the study
Methods of evaluation and analysis
Results
Accommodating the innovation into the local context: initial decisions
Dimension of SMA Innovation – Basic guidelines that needed to be translated | Starting Point: Initial Decisions | Promoting Factor | Hindering Factor |
---|---|---|---|
Shared Medical Appointment Initiation
| Core team with strengths related to diabetes were open to change and working together | Mandate from Central Office; Training provided; no specific guidelines; local facility has long history of supporting novel methods of care delivery | No specific guidelines; limited resources |
Focus: disease-specific or non-specific | Diabetes (reduce cardiovascular risk) | Provided focus consistent with strong core team | |
Drop-in or Schedule Patients
| Scheduled | Able to call and remind; able to plan | Limits number and requires more coordination |
Multi-disciplinary Professional Team
| Collaboration with key disciplines present | Strong, committed core team, including one member representing key leadership within primary care clinic | Difficulty coordinating, and finding and freeing up time to participate |
1 or more with prescribing Authority | Physician (Medical Director of Clinic); Endocrine nurse practitioner; Clinical pharmacist | Built-in redundancy of prescribers assisted with efficiency | Team members had different supervisors; Workload credit and credit for SMAs |
1 or more variety of Disciplines | Health Psychologist; Registered nurse | Different supervisors; Workload credit | |
Group of patients (8–20) | 4–8 patients (8 invited) | Flexibility to pilot test with small numbers of patients | Questions raised about inefficiency |
Target population
| Local registry to identify patients | Sufficient numbers who would benefit | |
Primary care provider pool (pull from one or more) | All Primary care providers' patients eligible | Able to include all high- risk patients | Threatened provider-patient relationship |
Patient pool | A1c > 9%; systolic blood pressure > 130 mmHg; LDL-cholesterol > 100 mg/dL | Getting several patients there; Viewed as difficult and non-compliant; concern about no-show rates | |
Time and Frequency: Meet for 90–120 minutes and variable regarding frequency | 90 minutes and to meet weekly (Friday afternoons) | ||
Techniques and Processes for conducting SMA
| Modification of chronic care model as a guide | ||
Didactics | Keep at a minimum | Many team members most comfortable with 'teaching' rather than facilitating group discussion | |
Information display and Sharing | Large board with patient lab values and other outcomes (e.g., A1c, systolic blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol); prepared by Clinical pharmacists | Summarized key points and helped solidify take home messages despite concern about non-lecture format | |
Group discussion | Peer support Motivational interviewing by Health Psychologist | Learning by all is possible even if not sharing; Simplified and focused individual session that followed group encounter | Some patients uncomfortable in groups |
Clinical component | Group chart display | ||
Forms: General information | ABCs of diabetes care (A1c, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc), foot care, etc. | Able to help meet performance measures; document patients educated | Hard to clarify for others what exactly was covered |
Forms: Patient-specific | Patient completed form with current values (copied from board), goals, med changes, plan of care outlined | Felt patients were getting individual information and tailoring | Preparation time |
Space
| Remote training rooms not available and negotiated clinic space | Able to secure some space | Limited options especially given construction |
Location | Primary Care Clinic Conference Room | Familiar | Displaced providers who use the room and limited access to computers available in the primary care clinic conference room |
Size and arrangement | Small conference room with computers and crowded | Table seating conducive to group sharing | Limited in size and mobility; configuration not ideal |
Mechanics
| |||
Documentation (suggest/identify individual to take responsibility) | Initially used a group note field in electronic record system, but recognized that modifications would need to be made.1
| User friendly, consistent with usual methods of documenting |
Implementation and evolution
Characteristic of Innovation ~Degree to which innovation provides or is: | Promoting Factor for SMA Implementation | Hindering Factor for SMA Implementation | Addressing the Issues to Facilitate Implementation and Sustainability |
---|---|---|---|
Relative advantage or utility over existing or other methods | Advantage of seeing several experts at same time, especially for behavioral barriers | No clear evidence; questioned value and whether patients would accept group format | Proved not to be a major issue |
Compatibility with existing norms and values | Consistent with norm and values of achieving process measures | Inconsistent with norm and value of sacred primary care provider-patient relationship; Different roles of healthcare professionals filling in-difficult switching from traditional to multidisciplinary team approach | Had a few team building and motivational interviewing learning sessions-lecture versus facilitation of patient info |
Complexity of explaining, understanding and using | Too vague and many unknowns; not easy to explain | Explain and sell it and take advantage of a trial period with small numbers of patients to highlight success and have observers (it was easier for providers to see it first hand) | |
Costs relative to benefits and level of investment | Efficacy questioned regarding clinical physiological outcomes and uncertain level of investment for various stakeholders | 1. Reorganizing flow allowed up to 18 patients to be seen in one SMA | |
2. Change in way patient data distributed in order to reduce prep time of Clinical Pharmacist and overall cost | |||
3. Introduced use of templated notes that included documentation of SMA activities at a general group level and also permitted individualized patient level documentation | |||
Risks related to uncertainty regarding results and consequences | High-risk – no conceptual model for designing or plan for diffusion | The organizational culture supported risk taking | |
Flexibility, adaptability to situation/needs of local context/target group | Vagueness provided options for adapting to local context and needs | Key non-flexible components not consistent with micro-system and mesosystem silo design | Recognition of additional patient needs prompted addition of a nutritionist to the team |
Involvement of target group in development | High involvement of the core team only | Existing structure impeding additional staff involvement | Unanticipated impact on staff not involved feeling left out addressed by creating opportunities for these staff to observe and get feedback/up dates |
Divisibility so able to try out parts separately | Low divisibility of shared appointments (i.e., can't try out various parts) | Unable to address; we have kept the basic model of SMAs | |
Trialability, reversibility without risk if doesn't work | High and approached as a trial period | Because of early successes, this proved not to be a major issue | |
Visibility, observability of results by other people | High – part of local culture is feedback | High – part of local culture is feedback | Patient successes led to increased referral of patients close to performance measure goals overloading the clinic and prompting the redirection of resources |
Centrality of impact on daily working routine | High | Impact of patients' stories has contributed to team finding meaning in their work, negating the effects of the changes in work routine | |
Pervasiveness, scope, impact on total work, people involved, time it takes and relationships | High: fear more work and would jeopardize primary care provider-patient relationships | Proved not to be a major issue | |
Magnitude, disruptiveness, radicalness
| High | The core team was made up of individuals willing to take risk and were unafraid of the potential disruption | |
Duration for when innovation/change must take place | Not a pressing factor | ||
Form, physical properties of innovation: material or social; technical or administrative, etc.) | High: material change, space requirements, schedule changes, administrative and technical adjustments | Continues to provide challenges | |
Collective action related to decisions | Low collective action | Strong core team (3–5 members) | Unanticipated impact on staff not involved feeling left out. Some of these staff were recruited to participate in other types of SMAs where they were involved in the decision-making. |
Nature of Presentation: length, clarity, attractiveness | High attractiveness | Low clarity | Began projects to share knowledge and experience with others |