Anneke van Dijk-De Vries

The ageing population, often with complex chronic care needs, is placing increasing pressure on primary care systems across Europe [1]. At the same time, care is shifting from institutions to commu...

Introduction: In 24/7 disability care facilities, patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs) are important to help healthcare professionals understand what matters to care users and to improve the quality of care. However, the successful implementation of a PREM is complex. In a Dutch disability care organization, stakeholders cocreated tailored implementation strategies aimed at improving the use and integration of a qualitative PREM. This study gives insights into the uptake and experiences with these cocreated implementation strategies and the perceived impact of the set of strategies.Methods: We performed a prospective process evaluation between February 2020 and February 2021. We collected data in three disability care facilities from 35 care users, 11 professionals, 3 facility managers and 4 organization representatives. Data collection included observations during kick‐offs and learning goal meetings and several attendance checklists. We collected 133 questionnaires (Time 0 and Time 1). We conducted 35 individual semistructured interviews and an online focus group interview. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using directed content analysis.Results: The exposure to and adoption of strategies was between 76% and 100%. Participants were positive about tailoring the strategies to each facility. Implementation was hindered by challenges in care users' communication and COVID‐19. The perceived impact referred to an improved understanding of the goal and added value of the PREM and better preparation and execution of the PREM. The impact of the set of strategies was mainly experienced on the micro level.Conclusion: The uptake of the cocreated implementation strategies was acceptable. The participants valued the tailored approach, which enabled them to focus on facility‐specific learning goals. Stakeholder engagement and co‐created strategies may have strengthened the adoption of and experiences with the implementation.Patient or Public Contribution: In this article, we present the process evaluation of implementation strategies for the integrated use of a PREM in disability care. A development group consisting of communication vulnerable care users, trainers and professionals developed the implementation strategies. The disability care organization was responsible for the planning and organization of the implementation process. During the process evaluation the end users, trainers, professionals and managers tailored the implementation strategies to their own settings and needs. Researchers observed this implementation process and interviewed the stakeholders about their experiences and the perceived impact.

Background: As the requirements for collaboration in primary care increase, effective interprofessional teamwork between GPs and other primary care professionals is crucial. The need for more training in interprofessional collaborative competencies is widely recognised. However, existing competency frameworks do not sufficiently specify interprofessional collaboration to guide interprofessional competency development.Aim: To reach consensus among GPs and other primary care professionals on interprofessional competencies that GP and GP trainees should learn.Design & setting: A qualitative consensus study among Dutch GPs and other primary care professionals, all with expertise in primary care interprofessional collaborative practice.Method: Three nominal group sessions were held, each resulting in its own group consensus on GP interprofessional collaborative competencies. The researchers conducted a content analysis to merge and thematise the prioritised competencies into one list. Participants prioritised this list of competencies. A pre-set cut-off point was applied to determine the overall consensus on core GP interprofessional competencies.Results: Eighteen professionals from nine different disciplines participated. The content analysis resulted in 31 unique competencies, of which 14 competencies were prioritised in the final ranking into the following three main themes: (1) professional identity development and role definition by the GP (three competencies); (2) developing and executing shared care plans for individual patients (six competencies); and (3) initiating and maintaining interprofessional collaborative partnerships (five competencies).Conclusion: An interprofessional group of experts reached consensus on 14 competencies within three themes. This framework provides a stepping stone for GPs to focus on their development regarding interprofessional collaboration.

Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.

The significance of effective interprofessional teamwork to improve the quality of care has been widely recognised. Effective interprofessional teamwork calls on good collaboration between professionals and patients, coordination between professionals, and the development of teamwork over time. Effective development of teams also requires support from the wider organisational context. In a Dutch village, healthcare professionals work closely together, and mutual consultations as well as interprofessional meetings take place on a regular basis. The network was created as a precondition for sustainable interprofessional teamwork in elderly care. However, several external barriers were experienced regarding the supportive structure and cooperative attitude of the healthcare insurer and municipality. The aim of the article is to examine these experience-based issues regarding internal organisation, perspective, and definition of effective teamwork. Complicating factors refer to finding the right key figures, and the different perspectives on team development and team effectiveness. Our conclusion is that the organisation of healthcare insurance companies needs to implement fundamental changes to facilitate an interprofessional care approach. Furthermore, municipalities should work on their vision of the needs and benefits of a fruitful collaboration with interprofessional healthcare teams. The challenge for healthcare teams is to learn to speak the language of external partners. To support the development of interprofessional teams, external parties need to recognise and trust in a shared aim to provide quality of care in an efficient and effective way.

Teamwork between healthcare providers is conditional for the delivery of integrated care. This study aimed to assess the usefulness of the conceptual framework Integrated Team Effectiveness Model for developing and testing of the Integrated Team Effectiveness Instrument. Focus groups with healthcare providers in an integrated care setting for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were conducted to examine the recognisability of the conceptual framework and to explore critical success factors for collaborative COPD practice out of this framework. The resulting items were transposed into a pilot instrument. This was reviewed by expert opinion and completed 153 times by healthcare providers. The underlying structure and internal consistency of the instrument were verified by factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha. The conceptual framework turned out to be comprehensible for discussing teamwork effectiveness. The pilot instrument measures 25 relevant aspects of teamwork in integrated COPD care. Factor analysis suggested three reliable components: teamwork effectiveness, team processes and team psychosocial traits (Cronbach's alpha between 0.76 and 0.81). The conceptual framework Integrated Team Effectiveness Model is relevant in developing a practical full-spectrum instrument to facilitate discussing teamwork effectiveness. The Integrated Team Effectiveness Instrument provides a well-founded basis to self-evaluate teamwork effectiveness in integrated COPD care by healthcare providers. Recommendations are provided for the improvement of the instrument.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of biopsychosocial Self-Management Support (SMS) delivered by practice nurses in routine diabetes care. Design A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial within a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design. Practice nurses were cluster-randomised. Setting A regional care group in the Netherlands consisting of 77 family practices. The study involved practice nurses (n=40) providing care to approximately 4000 patients with diabetes. Participants Patients with type 2 diabetes (n=264) selected by a self-administered questionnaire aimed at measuring emotional distress and diabetes-related reduced daily functioning. Intervention Practice nurses in the intervention arm (n=19) were trained to integrate SMS into their routine consultations. SMS included detection of patients with emotional distress and reduced daily functioning, and supporting them when needed through problem solving and reattribution techniques. Practice nurses in the control arm (n=21) provided usual care. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was a dichotomised score on a Visual Analogue Scale that measured the perceived effect of diabetes on daily functioning. Secondary measures included patients’ diabetes-related distress, quality of life, autonomy and participation, self-efficacy, self-management and glycaemic control. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 4-month and 12-month follow-ups. Results Only 16 of the 117 patients in the intervention arm (14%) who were found eligible by the posted research-driven screening questionnaire were detected by their practice nurses. Extra consultations for the self-management support were delivered to only 11 study participants. In the control arm, 147 patients received usual care. Multilevel analyses showed no significant differences in outcomes between the intervention and control arms. Conclusions SMS in its present form was not effective. The research-driven screening to select trial participants appeared to be inconsistent with nurse-led detection in routine practice. Adequate follow-up moments need to be built in to overcome barriers resulting from tension between the implementation and effectiveness parts of hybrid studies. Trial registration number Current Controlled Trials NTR2764.

Involving patients in decisions on primary prevention can be questioned from an ethical perspective, due to a tension between health promotion activities and patient autonomy. A nurse-led intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases, including counselling (risk communication, and elements of shared decision-making and motivational interviewing) and supportive tools such as a decision aid, was implemented in primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nurse-led intervention from an ethical perspective by exploring in detail the experiences of patients with the intervention, and their views on the role of both the nurse and patient. The study had a qualitative design. 18 patients who had received the intervention participated. Data were gathered by in-depth interviews. The interviews were analysed using directed content analysis. The findings revealed that patients perceived the consultations not as an infringement on their autonomy, but as supportive to risk reduction efforts they tried but found hard to realise. They specifically emphasised the role of the nurse, and appreciated the nurse's realistic advice, encouragement, and help in understanding. Patients' views on and experiences with risk management are in line with notions of relational autonomy, caring cooperation and communicative action found in the literature. We conclude that patients define the relationship with the nurse as shared work in the process of developing a healthier lifestyle.