| Literature DB >> 33303447 |
Muriel Schutz Leuthold1, Joelle Schwarz2, Joachim Marti3, Clémence Perraudin4, Catherine Hudon5, Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux3, Nicolas Senn2, Christine Cohidon2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Continuity of care, especially for patients with complex needs, is a major challenge for healthcare systems in many high-income countries, including Switzerland. Since 2015, a collaborative project between Unisanté-Department of Family Medicine (DMF), some general practitioners (GPs) and canton of Vaud's public health authorities has sought to develop a new organisational model for the provision of primary care to ensure better care coordination and to provide adapted care deliveries to patients' healthcare needs. The model's main component is the addition of a primary care nurse to GPs practices. Three additional tools are individualised patient care plans, electronic medical records and patient empanelment. To assess this model, a 2-year pilot study has begun in nine GPs' practices in the canton. This paper presents the protocol for an evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of the new organisational model. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a before-and-after study using a mixed-methods and a realist approach. First, we will use quantitative and qualitative data to assess the new organisational model's implementation (feasibility, fidelity, acceptability and costs) and effectiveness (healthcare services use, patient experience, staff experience and patient-level costs). Combining this data with focus group data will enable a realist evaluation of the pilot project, which will help understand the elements of context and mechanism that affect implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The evaluation will inform the canton of Vaud's health authorities about the limits of and perspectives for this organisational model. All results will also be made available to the practices and the patients involved. At the end of the project, we will propose organisational adaptations and a sustainable financial model for extending the model to other practices in the canton and potentially to the national level.The canton of Vaud's Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study, and Data Protection and Information Law Authority gave a favourable opinion concerning data processing procedures. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: general medicine (see Internal Medicine); organisation of health services; primary care
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33303447 PMCID: PMC7733189 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Logical model of the new organisational model.
Figure 2Overall evaluation design.
Training programme
| Content | Duration (hours) | Teacher |
| Pilot project MOCCA and components | 3 | Project manager of the pilot project (DMF) |
| Case management | 4 | |
| Evaluation of the pilot project | 4 | Research staff (DMF) |
| Emergency response | 1 | General practitioner (DMF) |
| Care plan | 4 | Nurse, integrate care specialist |
| Interprofessionality | 8 | SwissIPE |
Figure 3Primary care nurse interventions according to patients’ levels of complexity.
Data collection strategy for the implementation evaluation
| Outcomes | Type of data | Sources and format | Data collection | |
| Routine data | Ad hoc data | |||
| Feasibility | Mixed | Application | x | |
| Electronic medical records | x | |||
| Questionnaires | x | |||
| Non-participant observations | x | |||
| Diaries (PCNs, PM) | x | |||
| Fidelity | Mixed | Application | x | |
| Electronic medical records | x | |||
| Questionnaires | x | |||
| Non-participant observations | x | |||
| Diaries (PCNs, PM) | x | |||
| Acceptability | Qualitative | Interviews (PCNs) | x | |
| Focus groups (GPs, medical assistant) | x | |||
| Costs | Quantitative | Application | x | |
| Questionnaires | x | |||
GP, general practitioner; PCNs, primary care nurses; PM, project manager.
Data collection strategy for the effectiveness evaluation
| Outcomes | Type of data | Sources and format | Data collection | |
| Routine data | Ad hoc data | |||
| Staff’s experiences | Mixed | Questionnaires | x | |
| Interviews | x | |||
| Focus groups | x | |||
| Patients’ experiences | Mixed | Questionnaires | x | |
| Interview | x | |||
| Health services use and patient-level costs | Quantitative | Questionnaires | x | |
| Electronic medical records | x | |||
| Insurance reports | x | |||
Figure 4Steps in the realist evaluation.