The imperative of collaboration: Lived experience perspectives on team approaches in outpatient eating disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Across healthcare broadly, team treatment approaches range from siloed multidisciplinary treatment to synergistic Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (IPCP), with IPCP increasingly favored. In eating disorders, clinical practice guidelines endorse team outpatient treatment, and these approaches are widely used in clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence to describe attitudes toward and experiences of team approaches, including IPCP, among individuals with a lived experience. METHOD: Twenty-seven participants (aged 20-51 years) with a formal eating disorder diagnosis were recruited. Each had received outpatient eating disorder treatment from a team or teams comprising a mental health professional, dietitian, and general practitioner (GP) in the past 2 years. Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analyzed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were derived from the qualitative analysis. Themes included: (1) working together is better; (2) the linchpin of teamwork is communication; (3) teams should foster autonomy with limit-setting; and (4) systemic failures negatively affect team treatment. Participants favored highly collaborative treatment from a team including a mental health professional, dietitian, and GP at a minimum, where the team engaged in high-quality communication and fostered autonomy with limit-setting. Systemic failures negatively affecting team treatment were reported across the care continuum. DISCUSSION: Findings endorse the application of IPCP to outpatient eating disorder treatment as a strategy to improve treatment satisfaction, engagement, and outcomes. Given the paucity of evidence exploring IPCP in this field, however, the development and evaluation of interprofessional education and treatment models is a foundational necessity. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Team eating disorder treatment is widely used in clinical practice, although there is limited evidence to guide interventions. This study explores attitudes toward and experiences of team outpatient eating disorder treatment among individuals with a lived experience. Understanding preferred team treatment characteristics delivers important information to improve treatment satisfaction, engagement, and outcomes for individuals receiving outpatient eating disorder treatment.

Headache neuroimaging: A survey of current practice, barriers, and facilitators to optimal use.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand current practice, clinician understanding, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to optimal headache neuroimaging practices. BACKGROUND: Headaches are common in adults, and neuroimaging for these patients is common, costly, and increasing. Although guidelines recommend against routine headache neuroimaging in low-risk scenarios, guideline-discordant neuroimaging is still frequently performed. METHODS: We administered a 60-item survey to headache clinicians at the Veterans Affairs health system to assess clinician understanding and attitudes on headache neuroimaging and to determine neuroimaging practice patterns for three scenarios describing hypothetical patients with headaches. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, stratified by clinician type (physicians or advanced practice clinicians [APCs]) and specialty (neurology or primary care). RESULTS: The survey was successfully completed by 431 of 1426 clinicians (30.2% response rate). Overall, 317 of 429 (73.9%) believed neuroimaging was overused for patients with headaches. However, clinicians would utilize neuroimaging a mean (SD) 30.9% (31.7) of the time in a low-risk scenario without red flags, and a mean 67.1% (31.9) of the time in the presence of minor red flags. Clinicians had stronger beliefs in the potential benefits (268/429, 62.5%) of neuroimaging compared to harms (181/429, 42.2%) and more clinicians were bothered by harms stemming from the omission of neuroimaging (377/426, 88.5%) compared to commission (329/424, 77.6%). Additionally, APCs utilized neuroimaging more frequently than physicians and were more receptive to potential interventions to improve neuroimaging utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of clinicians believed neuroimaging was overused for patients with headaches, many would utilize neuroimaging in low-risk scenarios with a small probability of changing management. Future studies are needed to define the role of currently used red flags given their importance in neuroimaging decisions. Importantly, APCs may be an ideal target for future optimization efforts.

Understanding determinants of acute stroke thrombolysis using the tailored implementation for chronic diseases framework: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Disease (TICD) framework is a comprehensive framework describing the determinants of implementation success that has been used extensively in primary care settings. We explored the utility of the TICD to identify determinants of practice in an acute setting, namely guideline concordant acute stroke thrombolysis in a low-resourced, predominately minority serving, large, Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Through workshops and expert review, we developed an interview guide informed by the TICD framework. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with data collected through written transcripts, audio transcripts or interviewer notes based on participant availability. Three independent coders then performed a content analysis using template analysis, but open to new determinants that arose from the data, into the TICD framework. RESULTS: We performed a total of 15 semi-structured interviews with ED acute stroke providers including medical technicians, nurses, and physicians. We found that guideline factors, individual health professional factors, and patient factors domains were barriers to guideline concordant acute stroke thrombolysis. The domain professional interactions was a facilitator to treatment. We identified three determinants, healthcare professional burnout, health care professional turnover and surrogate decision making, that are not part of the TICD framework. CONCLUSIONS: Most determinants of acute stroke thrombolysis are included within the TICD framework. Inclusion of healthcare professional burnout, healthcare professional turnover and surrogate decision making may assist in expanding the TICD to time-sensitive ED conditions. Further work is needed to confirm this finding and to establish whether the TICD is applicable for use in non-time sensitive ED conditions. Interventions that address guideline, individual health professional and patient factors may improve guideline concordant acute stroke thrombolysis.