Article

Developing Measures of Educational Change for Academic Health Care Teams Implementing the Chronic Care Model in Teaching Practices

Oregon Health & Science University Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 09/2010; 25 Suppl 4(S4):S586-92. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1358-1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a multidimensional framework designed to improve care for patients with chronic health conditions. The model strives for productive interactions between informed, activated patients and proactive practice teams, resulting in better clinical outcomes and greater satisfaction. While measures for improving care may be clear, measures of residents' competency to provide chronic care do not exist. This report describes the process used to develop educational measures and results from CCM settings that used them to monitor curricular innovations.
Twenty-six academic health care teams participating in the national and California Academic Chronic Care Collaboratives.
Using successive discussion groups and surveys, participants engaged in an iterative process to identify desirable and feasible educational measures for curricula that addressed educational objectives linked to the CCM. The measures were designed to facilitate residency programs' abilities to address new accreditation requirements and tested with teams actively engaged in redesigning educational programs.
Field notes from each discussion and lists from work groups were synthesized using the CCM framework. Descriptive statistics were used to report survey results and measurement performance.
Work groups generated educational objectives and 17 associated measurements. Seventeen (65%) teams provided feasibility and desirability ratings for the 17 measures. Two process measures were selected for use by all teams. Teams reported variable success using the measures. Several teams reported use of additional measures, suggesting more extensive curricular change.
Using an iterative process in collaboration with program participants, we successfully defined a set of feasible and desirable education measures for academic health care teams using the CCM. These were used variably to measure the results of curricular changes, while simultaneously addressing requirements for residency accreditation.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Lloyd P Provost, Jun 22, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
88 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence on sustainability of programs that improve the quality of care delivery over time is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the predictive role of short and long term improvements in quality of chronic care delivery on program sustainability. In this longitudinal study, professionals [2010 (T0): n=218, 55% response rate; 2011 (T1): n=300, 68% response rate; 2012 (T2): n=265, 63% response rate] from 22 Dutch disease-management programs completed surveys assessing quality of care and program sustainability. Our study findings indicated that quality of chronic care delivery improved significantly in the first 2 years after implementation of the disease-management programs. At T1, overall quality, self-management support, delivery system design, and integration of chronic care components, as well as health care delivery and clinical information systems and decision support, had improved. At T2, overall quality again improved significantly, as did community linkages, delivery system design, clinical information systems, decision support and integration of chronic care components, and self-management support. Multilevel regression analysis revealed that quality of chronic care delivery at T0 (p<0.001) and quality changes in the first (p<0.001) and second (p<0.01) years predicted program sustainability. In conclusion this study showed that disease-management programs based on the chronic care model improved the quality of chronic care delivery over time and that short and long term changes in the quality of chronic care delivery predicted the sustainability of the projects.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 01/2014; 101:148-54. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.035 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a web-based self-management training for health professionals. Patients spend 99% of their time outside the healthcare system. Thus self-management support from health professionals is central to optimal care. Our objective was to teach health professionals the skills to provide this support. METHODS: Primary care residents and practicing providers enrolled in six groups. Each group received four web-based interactive training sessions derived from self-efficacy theory. Retrospective-pre/post assessed changes in self-management beliefs and confidence. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction compared responses. Focus groups solicited qualitative feedback. RESULTS: Fifty-seven residents and providers across the United States enrolled. Residents demonstrated positive changes on all belief questions (P 0.001-0.012). Practicing providers had a non-significant positive change on one and significant changes on the remainder (P 0.001-0.018). Both types of participants demonstrated significant increases on confidence questions regarding their ability to support self-management (P<0.01 for all). Participants described learned techniques as being useful, reducing burnout, and increasing acceptance of patient involvement in care planning. CONCLUSION: The web-based self-management support training for health professionals was feasible and changed beliefs and confidence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The program may maximize patient self-management by increasing provider self-efficacy and skill for self-management support.
    Patient Education and Counseling 09/2012; 90(1). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2012.09.003 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Disease management programmes are increasingly used to improve the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic care delivery. But, disease management programme development and implementation is a complex undertaking that requires effective decision-making. Choices made in the earliest phases of programme development are crucial, as they ultimately impact costs, outcomes and sustainability. To increase our understanding of the choices that primary healthcare practices face when implementing such programmes and to stimulate successful implementation and sustainability, we compared the early implementation of eight cardiovascular disease management programmes initiated and managed by healthcare practices in various regions of the Netherlands. Using a mixed-methods design, we identified differences in and challenges to programme implementation in terms of context, patient characteristics, disease management level, healthcare utilisation costs, development costs and health-related quality of life. Shifting to a multidisciplinary, patient-centred care pathway approach to disease management is demanding for organisations, professionals and patients, and is especially vulnerable when sustainable change is the goal. Funding is an important barrier to sustainable implementation of cardiovascular disease management programmes, although development costs of the individual programmes varied considerably in relation to the length of the development period. The large number of professionals involved in combination with duration of programme development was the largest cost drivers. While Information and Communication Technology systems to support the new care pathways did not directly contribute to higher costs, delays in implementation indirectly did. Developing and implementing cardiovascular disease management programmes is time-consuming and challenging. Multidisciplinary, patient-centred care demands multifaceted changes in routine care. As care pathways become more complex, they also become more expensive. Better preparedness and training can prevent unnecessary delays during the implementation period and are crucial to reducing costs.
    International journal of integrated care 08/2013; 13:e028. · 1.26 Impact Factor