BackgroundDespite the widespread availability of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) in various healthcare settings, evidence on their uptake and effectiveness is still limited. Most barrier studies focus on CDSSs that are aimed at a limited number of decision points within selected small-scale academic settings. The aim of this study was to identify the perceived barriers to using large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care.MethodsThree focus group sessions were conducted in which 24 primary care practitioners (PCPs) participated (general practitioners, general practitioners in training and practice nurses), varying from 7 to 9 per session. In each focus group, barriers to using CDSSs were discussed using a semi-structured literature-based topic list. Focus group discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently performed thematic content analysis using the software program Atlas.ti 7.0.ResultsThree groups of barriers emerged, related to 1) the users’ knowledge of the system, 2) the users’ evaluation of features of the system (source and content, format/lay out, and functionality), and 3) the interaction of the system with external factors (patient-related and environmental factors). Commonly perceived barriers were insufficient knowledge of the CDSS, irrelevant alerts, too high intensity of alerts, a lack of flexibility and learning capacity of the CDSS, a negative effect on patient communication, and the additional time and work it requires to use the CDSS.ConclusionsMultiple types of barriers may hinder the use of large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care. Lack of knowledge of the system is an important barrier, emphasizing the importance of a proper introduction of the system to the target group. Furthermore, barriers related to a lack of integration into daily practice seem to be of primary concern, suggesting that increasing the system’s flexibility and learning capacity in order to be able to adapt the decision support to meet the varying needs of different users should be the main target of CDSS interventions.

ObjectiveTo assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation.DesignA qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy.Data extraction and synthesisThe factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context.ResultsWe identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%).ConclusionsThis study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

Abstract. Most highly developed economies have embarked on a process of primary health care (PHC) transformation. To provide evidence on how nations vary in terms of accessing PHC, the aim of this study is to describe the extent to which barriers to access were experienced by adults in Australia compared with other countries. Communities participating in an international research project on PHC access interventions were engaged to prioritise questions from the 2013 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey within a framework that conceptualises access across dimensions of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability and appropriateness. Logistic regression models, with barriers to access as outcomes, found measures of availability to be a problematic dimension in Australia; 27% of adults experienced difficulties with out-of-hours access, which was higher than 5 of 10 comparator countries. Although less prevalent, affordability was also perceived as a substantial barrier; 16% of Australians said they had forgone health care due to cost in the previous year. After adjusting for age and health status, this barrier was more common in Australia than 7 of 10 countries. Findings of this integrated assessment of barriers to access offer insights for policymakers and researchers on Australia's international performance in this crucial PHC domain.

ObjectiveIt is known that doctors who receive complaints may have feelings of anger, guilt, shame and depression, both in the short and in the long term. This might lead to functional impairment. Less is known about the impact of the disciplinary process and imposed measures. Previous studies of disciplinary proceedings have mainly focused on identifying characteristics of disciplined doctors and on sentencing policies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore what impact the disciplinary process and imposed measures have on healthcare professionals.DesignSemistructured interview study, with purposive sampling and inductive qualitative content analysis.Participants16 healthcare professionals (9 medical specialists, 3 general practitioners, 2 physiotherapists and 2 psychologists) that were sanctioned by the disciplinary tribunal.SettingThe Netherlands.ResultsProfessionals described feelings of misery and insecurity both during the process as in its aftermath. Furthermore, they reported to fear receiving new complaints and provide care more cautiously after the imposed measure. Factors that may enhance psychological and professional impact are the publication of measures online and in newspapers, media coverage, the feeling of treated as guilty before any verdict has been reached, and the long duration of the process.ConclusionsThis study shows that the disciplinary process and imposed measures can have a profound psychological and professional impact on healthcare professionals. Although a disciplinary measure is meant to have a corrective effect, our results suggest that the impact that is experienced by professionals might hamper optimal rehabilitation afterwards. Therefore, organising emotional support should be considered during the disciplinary process and in the period after the verdict.

Introduction: since 2000, primary care (PC) reforms have been implemented in various Canadian provinces. Emerging organizational models and policies are at various levels of implementation across jurisdictions. few cross-provincial analyses of these reforms have been realized. The aim of this study is to identify the factors that have facilitated or hindered implementation of reforms in Canadian provinces between 2000 and 2010. Methods: A literature and policy scan identified evaluation studies across Canadian jurisdictions. Experts from British Columbia, manitoba, Nova scotia, Ontario and quebec were asked to review the scope of published evaluations and draft provincial case descriptions. A one-day deliberative forum was held, bringing together researchers (n = 40) and decisionmakers (n = 20) from all the participating provinces. Results: despite a relative lack of published evaluations, our results suggest that PC reform has varied with regard to the scope and the policy levers used to implement change. some provinces implemented specific PC models, while other provinces designed overarching policies aiming at changing professional behaviour and practice. The main perceived barriers to reform were the lack of financial investment, resistance from professional associations, too overtly prescriptive approaches lacking adaptability and an overly centralized governance model. The main perceived facilitators were a strong financial commitment using various allocation and payment approaches, the cooperation of professional associations and an incremental emergent change philosophy based on a strong decentralization of decisions allowing adaptation to local circumstances. so far the most beneficial results of the reforms seem to be an increase in patients' affiliation with a usual source of care, improved experience of care by patients and a higher workforce satisfaction. Conclusion: PC reforms currently under consideration in other jurisdictions could learn from the factors identified as promoting or hindering change in the provinces that have been most proactive.

BackgroundPatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been introduced in studies to assess healthcare performance. The development of PROMs for primary care poses specific challenges, including a preference for generic measures that can be used across diseases, including early phases or mild conditions. This pilot study aimed to explore the potential usefulness of seven generic measures for assessing health outcomes in primary care patients.MethodsA total of 300 patients in three general practices were invited to participate in the study, shortly after their visit to the general practitioner. Patients received a written questionnaire, containing seven validated instruments, focused on patient empowerment (PAM-13 or EC-17), quality of life (EQ-5D or SF-12), mental health (GHQ-12), enablement (PEI) and perceived treatment effect (GPE). Furthermore, questions on non-specific symptoms and number of GP contacts were included. After 4 weeks patients received a second, identical, questionnaire. Response and missing items, total scores and dispersion, responsiveness, and associations between instruments and other measures were examined.ResultsA total of 124 patients completed the questionnaire at baseline, of whom 98 completed it both at baseline and 4 weeks later (response rate: 32.7%). The instruments had a full completion rate of 80% or higher. Differences between baseline and follow up were significant for the EQ-5D (p = 0.026), SF-12 PCS (p = 0.026) and the GPE (p = 0.006). A strong correlation (r ≥ 0.6) was found between the SF-12 MCS and GHQ-12, at both baseline measurement and after four weeks. Other observed associations between instruments were moderately strong. No strong correlations were found between instruments and non-specific symptoms or number of GP contacts.ConclusionsThe present study is among the first to explore the use of generic patient-reported outcome measures in primary care. It provides several leads for developing a generic PROM questionnaire in primary care as well as for potential limitations of such instruments.

The literature is dominated by outcomes for physicians in North American programmes, with positive outcomes for SUD and varying outcomes for dyscompetence. Based on our findings we cannot make valid comparisons in outcomes between professions and specific performance concerns, and we call for other programmes to report on outcomes for different professions and concerns. Because of the positive outcomes of physician health programmes, other countries should consider introducing similar programmes to support healthcare professionals getting back on track.

BackgroundPatient care teams have an important role in providing medical care to patients with chronic disease, but insight into how to improve their performance is limited. Two potentially relevant determinants are the presence of a central care provider with a coordinating role and an active role of the patient in the network of care providers. In this study, we aimed to develop and test measures of these factors related to the network of care providers of an individual patient.MethodsWe performed an observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes or chronic heart failure, who were recruited from three primary care practices in The Netherlands. The study focused on medical treatment, advice on physical activity, and disease monitoring. We used patient questionnaires and chart review to measure connections between the patient and care providers, and a written survey among care providers to measure their connections. Data on clinical performance were extracted from the medical records. We used network analysis to compute degree centrality coefficients for the patient and to identify the most central health professional in each network. A range of other network characteristics were computed including network centralization, density, size, diversity of disciplines, and overlap among activity-specific networks. Differences across the two chronic conditions and associations with disease monitoring were explored.ResultsApproximately 50% of the invited patients participated. Participation rates of health professionals were close to 100%. We identified 63 networks of 25 patients: 22 for medical treatment, 16 for physical exercise advice, and 25 for disease monitoring. General practitioners (GPs) were the most central care providers for the three clinical activities in both chronic conditions. The GP's degree centrality coefficient varied substantially, and higher scores seemed to be associated with receiving more comprehensive disease monitoring. The degree centrality coefficient of patients also varied substantially but did not seem to be associated with disease monitoring.ConclusionsOur method can be used to measure connections between care providers of an individual patient, and to examine the association between specific network parameters and healthcare received. Further research is needed to refine the measurement method and to test the association of specific network parameters with quality and outcomes of healthcare.