Informing understanding of coordination of care for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a secondary qualitative analysis.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016583
Rosalie Brooman-White, Thomas Blakeman, Duncan McNab, Christi Deaton
{"title":"Informing understanding of coordination of care for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a secondary qualitative analysis.","authors":"Rosalie Brooman-White, Thomas Blakeman, Duncan McNab, Christi Deaton","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are a complex and underserved group. They are commonly older patients with multiple comorbidities, who rely on multiple healthcare services. Regional variation in services and resourcing has been highlighted as a problem in heart failure care, with few teams bridging the interface between the community and secondary care. These reports conflict with policy goals to improve coordination of care and dissolve boundaries between specialist services and the community.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore how care is coordinated for patients with HFpEF, with a focus on the interface between primary care and specialist services in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied systems thinking methodology to examine the relationship between work-as-imagined and work-as-done for coordination of care for patients with HFpEF. We analysed clinical guidelines in conjunction with a secondary applied thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals caring for patients with HFpEF including general practitioners, specialist nurses and cardiologists and patients with HFpEF themselves (n=41). Systems Thinking for Everyday Work principles provided a sensitising theoretical framework to facilitate a deeper understanding of how these data illustrate a complex health system and where opportunities for improvement interventions may lie.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes (working with complexity, information transfer and working relationships) were identified to explain variability between <i>work-as-imagined</i> and <i>work-as-done</i>. Participants raised educational needs, challenging work conditions, issues with information transfer systems and organisational structures poorly aligned with patient needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are multiple challenges that affect coordination of care for patients with HFpEF. Findings from this study illuminate the complexity in coordination of care practices and have implications for future interventional work.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"232-245"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016583","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are a complex and underserved group. They are commonly older patients with multiple comorbidities, who rely on multiple healthcare services. Regional variation in services and resourcing has been highlighted as a problem in heart failure care, with few teams bridging the interface between the community and secondary care. These reports conflict with policy goals to improve coordination of care and dissolve boundaries between specialist services and the community.

Aim: To explore how care is coordinated for patients with HFpEF, with a focus on the interface between primary care and specialist services in England.

Methods: We applied systems thinking methodology to examine the relationship between work-as-imagined and work-as-done for coordination of care for patients with HFpEF. We analysed clinical guidelines in conjunction with a secondary applied thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals caring for patients with HFpEF including general practitioners, specialist nurses and cardiologists and patients with HFpEF themselves (n=41). Systems Thinking for Everyday Work principles provided a sensitising theoretical framework to facilitate a deeper understanding of how these data illustrate a complex health system and where opportunities for improvement interventions may lie.

Results: Three themes (working with complexity, information transfer and working relationships) were identified to explain variability between work-as-imagined and work-as-done. Participants raised educational needs, challenging work conditions, issues with information transfer systems and organisational structures poorly aligned with patient needs.

Conclusions: There are multiple challenges that affect coordination of care for patients with HFpEF. Findings from this study illuminate the complexity in coordination of care practices and have implications for future interventional work.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
告知对射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者护理协调的理解:二次定性分析。
背景:射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者是一个复杂且服务不足的群体。他们通常是患有多种合并症的老年患者,他们依赖多种医疗服务。服务和资源的区域差异已被强调为心力衰竭护理中的一个问题,很少有团队能够在社区和二级护理之间架起桥梁。这些报告与改善护理协调和消除专家服务与社区之间界限的政策目标相冲突。目的:探讨HFpEF患者的护理是如何协调的,重点是英格兰初级护理和专科服务之间的接口。方法:运用系统思维方法,考察HFpEF患者在协调护理方面的想象工作和实际工作之间的关系。我们分析了临床指南,并对照顾HFpEF患者的医疗保健专业人员进行了二次应用主题分析,包括全科医生、专科护士和心脏病专家以及HFpEF病人自己(n=41)。日常工作的系统思维原则提供了一个敏感的理论框架,有助于更深入地理解这些数据如何说明复杂的卫生系统,以及改进干预措施的机会在哪里。结果:确定了三个主题(复杂性工作、信息传递和工作关系)来解释想象中的工作和完成中的工作之间的可变性。参与者提出了教育需求、具有挑战性的工作条件、信息传递系统和组织结构与患者需求不一致的问题。结论:影响HFpEF患者护理协调的挑战有很多。这项研究的结果阐明了护理实践协调的复杂性,并对未来的干预工作有启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
Contextual factors that influence adoption and sustainment of self-management support in cancer survivorship care: a practical application of theory with qualitative interviews. 'We listened and supported and depended on each other': a qualitative study of how leadership influences implementation of QI interventions. Global perspectives on opioid use: shifting the conversation from deprescribing to quality use of medicines. From insight to action: tackling underperformance in health professionals. Experiences with diagnostic delay among underserved racial and ethnic patients: a systematic review of the qualitative literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1