Dominick L Frosch1, Kirsty J Singer, Stefan Timmermans. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA. froschd@pamfri.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of patient decision support interventions (DESI), little is known about their implementation in community-based primary care practices. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to explore the feasibility of integrating the use of DESIs for cancer screening in primary care practices serving patients from diverse backgrounds and learn more about the potential barriers and facilitators of integration. SETTING: 12 community-based primary care practices in metropolitan Los Angeles. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Qualitative field notes documented the roles played by staff and physicians in accomplishing project goals, the impact of the programmes on the clinical work-flow in the practices and other noteworthy observations. RESULTS: Practices that were better able to integrate the project had adequate clinic infrastructure, a relatively well-matched patient pool, and positive work and patient care environments. The remaining identified components, including staff facilitation and the physician's role accounted for higher level differences between the clinics, acting as barriers and facilitators that distinguished practices that were able to work independently from those that required more assistance and, to a lesser extent, those clinics that did and those that did not meet the project goals. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that implementation of DESIs to be used immediately before a consultation is feasible if the practice infrastructure can provide sufficient basic accommodation and physician and staff are dedicated to patient care goals that are implicit in the use of these tools. Overall, the physician's role appeared to be the most important factor in determining whether project integration was successful.
BACKGROUND: Despite a growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of patient decision support interventions (DESI), little is known about their implementation in community-based primary care practices. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to explore the feasibility of integrating the use of DESIs for cancer screening in primary care practices serving patients from diverse backgrounds and learn more about the potential barriers and facilitators of integration. SETTING: 12 community-based primary care practices in metropolitan Los Angeles. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Qualitative field notes documented the roles played by staff and physicians in accomplishing project goals, the impact of the programmes on the clinical work-flow in the practices and other noteworthy observations. RESULTS: Practices that were better able to integrate the project had adequate clinic infrastructure, a relatively well-matched patient pool, and positive work and patient care environments. The remaining identified components, including staff facilitation and the physician's role accounted for higher level differences between the clinics, acting as barriers and facilitators that distinguished practices that were able to work independently from those that required more assistance and, to a lesser extent, those clinics that did and those that did not meet the project goals. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that implementation of DESIs to be used immediately before a consultation is feasible if the practice infrastructure can provide sufficient basic accommodation and physician and staff are dedicated to patient care goals that are implicit in the use of these tools. Overall, the physician's role appeared to be the most important factor in determining whether project integration was successful.
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Diane Valade; Catherine Orlowski; Catherine Draus; Barbara Nabozny-Valerio; Susan Keiser Journal: Health Expect Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Amanda Petrik; Jennifer Rivelli; Stephen Taplin; Beverly B Green Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Sarguni Singh; Dagoberto Cortez; Douglas Maynard; James F Cleary; Lori DuBenske; Toby C Campbell Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Charlotte J Hagerman; Paula G Bellini; Kim M Davis; Richard M Hoffman; David S Aaronson; Daniel Y Leigh; Riley E Zinar; David Penson; Stephen Van Den Eeden; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Nicole Puccinelli-Ortega; Mark Cromo; Kristie L Foley; Mark B Dignan; Ajay Dharod; Anna C Snavely; David P Miller Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 2.342