No abstract

No abstract

Background Communication within the circle of care is central to coordinated, safe, and effective care; yet patients, caregivers, and health care providers often experience poor communication and fragmented care. Through a sequential program of research, the Loop Research Collaborative developed a web-based, asynchronous clinical communication system for team-based care. Loop assembles the circle of care centered on a patient, in private networking spaces called Patient Loops. The patient, their caregiver, or both are part of the Patient Loop. The communication is threaded, it can be filtered and sorted in multiple ways, it is securely stored, and can be exported for upload to a medical record. Objective The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate Loop. The study reporting adheres to the Standards for Reporting Implementation Research. Methods The study was a hybrid type II mixed methods design to simultaneously evaluate Loop’s clinical and implementation effectiveness, and implementation barriers and facilitators in 6 health care sites. Data included monthly user check-in interviews and bimonthly surveys to capture patient or caregiver experience of continuity of care, in-depth interviews to explore barriers and facilitators based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and Loop usage extracted directly from the Loop system. Results We recruited 25 initiating health care providers across 6 sites who then identified patients or caregivers for recruitment. Of 147 patient or caregiver participants who were assessed and met screening criteria, 57 consented and 52 were enrolled on Loop, creating 52 Patient Loops. Across all Patient Loops, 96 additional health care providers consented to join the Loop teams. Loop usage was followed for up to 8 months. The median number of messages exchanged per team was 1 (range 0-28). The monthly check-in and CFIR interviews showed that although participants acknowledged that Loop could potentially fill a gap, existing modes of communication, workflows, incentives, and the lack of integration with the hospital electronic medical records and patient portals were barriers to its adoption. While participants acknowledged Loop’s potential value for engaging the patient and caregiver, and for improving communication within the patient’s circle of care, Loop’s relative advantage was not realized during the study and there was insufficient tension for change. Missing data limited the analysis of continuity of care. Conclusions Fundamental structural and implementation challenges persist toward realizing Loop’s potential as a shared system of asynchronous communication. Barriers include health information system integration; system, organizational, and individual tension for change; and a fee structure for health care provider compensation for asynchronous communication.

Simulation is a key contributor to quality medical education. However, results achieved when simulation programs are developed and tested in controlled experimental settings do not automatically translate into improved learner outcomes when these programs are implemented in real-world settings. Although over the last decade implementation science has emerged as a field intended to guide the implementation of evidence-based programs in various contexts, recent reviews suggest that it has not been integrated into simulation-based education. Implementation science is defined as a rigorous study of methods that allow for a systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices. The ultimate goal of implementation science is to provide an evidence-based approach to program delivery in practice in order to achieve the targeted health and education outcomes and maximize the return on research investments. The main reason is that in order to achieve the intended outcomes, it is crucial to pay attention to both program quality and implementation quality. In other words, having a good simulation program does not guarantee achieving the intended learning outcomes. In this editorial we propose to highlight the research to practice gap in simulation-based health professions education, introduce the concept of implementation science and how it can serve to close the gap, and provide an example of a model derived entirely based on other models and frameworks existing in the field of implementation science to help simulation program directors and other administrators to implement simulation programs into educational practice.

Purpose: Despite the known health benefits of physical activity (PA), few primary care pediatricians discuss, evaluate, or prescribe PA for children. The goal of this study was to examine pediatricians’ thoughts and practices related to child PA and the perceived facilitators and barriers to implementing PA evaluation and prescription in pediatric primary care clinics. Methods: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to explore implementation barriers and facilitators. A mixed-method design combined questionnaires and focus groups with 27 pediatricians. Results: Despite the pediatricians’ beliefs that PA is important for patients, there was wide practice variability in their approaches to discussing PA. Several perceived barriers to implementing PA evaluation and prescription were identified, including lack of knowledge and training, managing time for PA with multiple demands, the need for a team approach and simple PA tools and resources, support for patient tailoring of PA messaging, and a need for PA best practice champions. Conclusion: The identified barriers to implementing evidence in PA suggest several directions for improvement, including a care-team approach; quick, inexpensive, and simple PA tools; community PA partnerships; PA training in medical education; evidence-based strategies; and PA directories for families. These efforts could facilitate the implementation of PA best practices in pediatrics.

Background: We developed a multicomponent, family-based intervention for young children with obesity consisting of parent group sessions, home nursing visits, and multidisciplinary clinical encounters. Our objective was to assess intervention feasibility, acceptability, and implementation. Methods: From 2017 to 2020, we conducted a multiple methods study in the obesity management clinic at a tertiary children's hospital (Toronto, Canada). We included 1–6 year olds with a body mass index ≥97th percentile and their parents; we also included health care providers (HCPs) who delivered the intervention. To assess feasibility, we performed a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the intervention to usual care. To explore acceptability, we conducted parent focus groups. To explore implementation, we examined contextual factors with HCPs using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: There was a high level of ineligibility ( n = 34/61) for the pilot RCT. Over 21 months, 11 parent-child dyads were recruited; of 6 randomized to the intervention, 3 did not participate in group sessions or home visits. In focus groups, themes identified by parents ( n = 8) related to information provided at referral; fit between the intervention and patient needs; parental gains from participating in the intervention; and feasibility of group sessions. HCPs ( n = 10) identified contextual factors that were positively and negatively associated with intervention implementation. Conclusions: We encountered challenges related to intervention feasibility, acceptability, and implementation. Lessons learned from this study will inform the next iteration of our intervention and are relevant to intervention development and implementation for young children with obesity. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03219658.

BACKGROUND Communication within the circle of care is central to coordinated, safe, and effective care; yet patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers often experience poor communication and fragmented care [1,2]. Through a sequential program of research, the Loop Research Collaborative developed a web-based clinical communication system for team-based care. Loop assembles the circle of care centred on a patient, in private networking spaces called Patient Loops. The patient, and/or their caregiver, is part of the Patient Loop. The communication is threaded; it can be filtered and sorted in multiple ways; it is securely stored and can be exported for upload to a medical record. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate Loop. The study reporting adheres to the Standards for Reporting Implementation Research. METHODS The study was a Hybrid Type II mixed methods design to simultaneously evaluate Loop’s clinical and implementation effectiveness, and implementation barriers and facilitators in six healthcare sites. Data included monthly user check-in interviews and bi-monthly surveys to capture patient or caregiver experience of continuity of care, in-depth interviews to explore barriers and facilitators based on the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) and Loop usage extracted directly from the Loop system. RESULTS We recruited 25 initiating healthcare professionals (iHCPs) across six sites who then identified patients and/or caregivers for recruitment. Of 147 patient or caregiver participants who were assessed and met screening criteria, 57 consented and 52 were enrolled on Loop, creating 52 Patient Loops. Across all Patient Loops, 96 additional health care providers (HCPs) consented to join the Loop teams. Loop usage was followed for up to 8 months. The median number of messages exchanged per team was 1 with a range of 0-28. The monthly check-in and CFIR interviews showed that although participants acknowledged that Loop could potentially fill a gap, existing modes of communication, workflows, incentives, and the lack of integration with the hospital EMRs and patient portals were barriers to its adoption. While participants acknowledged Loop’s potential value for engaging the patient and caregiver, and for improving communication within the patient’s circle of care, Loop’s relative advantage was not realized during the study and there was insufficient tension for change. Missing data limited the analysis of continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS Fundamental structural and implementation challenges persist toward realizing Loop’s potential as a shared system of asynchronous communication. Barriers include health information system integration; system, organizational, and individual tension for change; and a fee structure for healthcare provider compensation for asynchronous communication.