Qualitative findings on building a partnered approach to implementation of a group-based diabetes intervention in VA primary care

Jennifer Arney, Kimberly Thurman, Lindsey Jones, Lea Kiefer, Natalie E Hundt, Aanand D Naik, LeChauncy D Woodard, Jennifer Arney, Kimberly Thurman, Lindsey Jones, Lea Kiefer, Natalie E Hundt, Aanand D Naik, LeChauncy D Woodard

Abstract

Objective: Conduct a formative evaluation to inform the implementation of 'Empowering Patients in Chronic Care' (EPIC), an evidence-based interdisciplinary group medical appointment intervention to improve collaborative goal-setting in patients with treated but uncontrolled diabetes.

Design: The formative evaluation involved qualitative, in-depth interviews with clinicians, structured according to the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services framework. Interviews elicited (1) participants' knowledge regarding interdisciplinary group self-management and goal-setting programmes and how well clinicians embrace these interventions (evidence), (2) physical and social climate at each target facility and how the intervention can best be embedded into routine primary care (context) and (3) site-specific needs to be addressed by our implementation team and clinicians' preparedness and intentions to participate in the intervention (facilitation).

Setting: Clinicians were part of a primary care setting at one of five participating medical facilities within one Veterans Health Administration Veterans Affairs regional network.

Participants: We interviewed a snowball sample of 35 interdisciplinary clinicians engaged in diabetes management, practising leadership and administrators at target sites.

Results: Most participants had previous experience with diabetes group self-management programmes and viewed group appointments as an effective approach to enhancing care. Discussions about existing group appointments provided a context for evaluating potential barriers and facilitators to implementing EPIC into target sites. Interviews revealed clinicians' expectations about the roles they would play in the intervention, their assessments of the roles and strategies to facilitate their performance in those roles.

Conclusions: Successful implementation of evidence-based practices into routine care requires a partnered approach with engaged local staff. The intervention should address local goals and research objectives to encourage bidirectional engagement. Robust partnerships are nurtured further by sustained, open communication and must consider the context, target population and local experience to address barriers and facilitators to implementation.

Keywords: implementation research; primary care; qualitative research; veterans.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The four sessions of the original EPIC intervention. ABC, haemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, cholesterol; EPIC, Empowering Patients in Chronic Care.

References

    1. Naik AD, Lawrence B, Kiefer L, et al. . Building a primary care/research partnership: lessons learned from a telehealth intervention for diabetes and depression. Fam Pract 2015;32:216–23. 10.1093/fampra/cmu084
    1. Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. Am J Public Health 2011;101:2059–67. 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300193
    1. Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, et al. . The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21(Suppl 2):S1–8. 10.1007/s11606-006-0267-9
    1. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, Part 2. JAMA 2002;288:1909–14.
    1. Norris SL, Lau J, Smith SJ, et al. . Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1159–71. 10.2337/diacare.25.7.1159
    1. Parchman ML, Zeber JE, Palmer RF. Participatory decision making, patient activation, medication adherence, and intermediate clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a STARNet study. Ann Fam Med 2010;8:410–7. 10.1370/afm.1161
    1. Lorig K. Action planning: a call to action. J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19:324–5. 10.3122/jabfm.19.3.324
    1. Naik AD, Kallen MA, Walder A, et al. . Improving hypertension control in diabetes mellitus: the effects of collaborative and proactive health communication. Circulation 2008;117:1361–8. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.724005
    1. Jaber R, Braksmajer A, Trilling J. Group visits for chronic illness care: models, benefits and challenges. Fam Pract Manag 2006;13:37–40.
    1. Naik AD, Palmer N, Petersen NJ, et al. . Comparative effectiveness of goal setting in diabetes mellitus group clinics: randomized clinical trial. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:453–9. 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.70
    1. US Department of Veterans Affairs: Health Services Research & Development. HSR&D collaborative research to enhance and advance transformation and excellence (CREATE) initiative. USA: US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2016. (accessed 20 Mar 2017).
    1. Helfrich CD, Damschroder LJ, Hagedorn HJ, et al. . A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci 2010;5:82 10.1186/1748-5908-5-82
    1. Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, et al. . A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci 2011;6:99 10.1186/1748-5908-6-99
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research : Bryman A, Burgess RG, Analyzing qualitative data. First Edn New York: Routledge, 1994:173–94.
    1. Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res 1995;5:147–9. 10.1177/104973239500500201
    1. Aita VA, Mcllvain HE. An armchair adventure in case study research : Crabtree BF, Miller ML, Doing qualitative research. Second Edn London: Sage, 1999.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci 2015;10:53 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa