From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research (KFS, ELR, JRH); Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (KFS); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences (JRR); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (LLP, MMC); Samford University, Birmingham, AL (LLP, SHP); East Carolina University, Greenville, NC (MM); Area L Area Health Education Center, Rocky Mount, NC (JRH).
J Am Board Fam Med. 2021 Sep-Oct;34(5):991-1002. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.05.210140.
Practice facilitation (PF) is a promising but relatively new intervention supporting data-driven practice change. There is a need to better detail research-based facilitation methods, which must balance intervention fidelity and time restrictions with the flexibility required for the intervention. As part of a multi-level 4-armed cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT), 32 rural primary care practices received PF for 1 year. We evaluated the feasibility of having facilitators guide practices to perform 4 key driver domain activities, implemented as Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, to better understand facilitation "exposure." We describe the intervention and activity length such that our experiences may be useful to other PF research efforts.
Thirty-two practices serving rural patients involved in the Southeastern Collaboration to Improvement Blood Pressure Control engaged with a facilitator to develop and implement PDSAs nested within key drivers of change domains. Numbers of months practices worked on activities deemed most likely to be sustained were captured along with practice satisfaction data.
All practices engaged in at least 4 domain-level activities, and 59% of the PDSAs were active for at least 3 months. There was variation by domain in the average length of the PDSA activities. Ninety-seven percent (31 of 32) of practices recommended similarly structured facilitation services to other primary care practices, and 84% (27 of 32) noted substantive changes in their care processes.
In this trial, it was feasible for PFs to engage practices in at least 4 Key Driver quality improvement activities within 1 year, which will inform PF methods and protocol development in future trials.
实践促进(PF)是一种有前途但相对较新的干预措施,可支持基于数据的实践改变。需要更好地详细说明基于研究的促进方法,这些方法必须平衡干预的保真度和时间限制与干预所需的灵活性。作为一项多层次 4 臂集群随机临床试验(RCT)的一部分,32 个农村初级保健实践接受了为期 1 年的 PF。我们评估了让促进者指导实践执行 4 个关键驱动领域活动的可行性,这些活动作为计划-执行-研究-行动(PDSA)循环实施,以更好地了解促进“暴露”。我们描述了干预措施和活动的长度,以便我们的经验可以为其他 PF 研究工作提供有用的参考。
参与东南协作改善血压控制的 32 个为农村患者服务的实践与促进者合作,在变革驱动领域的关键领域内制定和实施 PDSA 嵌套。记录了实践从事被认为最有可能持续的活动的月数,以及实践满意度数据。
所有实践都参与了至少 4 个领域级别的活动,59%的 PDSA 至少活跃了 3 个月。各个领域的 PDSA 活动的平均长度存在差异。97%(31/32)的实践向其他初级保健实践推荐了类似结构的促进服务,84%(27/32)注意到其护理过程发生了实质性变化。
在这项试验中,PF 在 1 年内使实践参与至少 4 个关键驱动质量改进活动是可行的,这将为未来试验中的 PF 方法和方案制定提供信息。