Providing person-centred care for people with multiple chronic conditions: protocol for a qualitative study incorporating client and staff perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic conditions are associated with over one-third of potentially avoidable hospitalisations. Integrated care programmes aim to help people with chronic conditions to self-manage their health, thus avoiding hospital admissions. While founded on principles of person-centred care, the experiences of people with multiple chronic conditions in integrated care programmes are not widely known. Our study will explore how person-centred care is incorporated into an integrated care programme for people with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative phenomenological study being conducted from March 2018 to June 2019, in a large metropolitan health service in Melbourne, Australia. Participants will be programme clients (and/or their carers) and staff working in the programme. We will interview staff about their experiences of the programme. Recruited staff will assist with recruitment of clients who recently completed an episode of care, to participate in a semistructured interview in their home. We will also analyse the medical records of interviewed clients, and observe outpatient clinics connected to the programme, based on the findings of the interviews. We will analyse all data using thematic analysis, with overarching themes representing staff and client perspectives of person-centred care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Monash Health (HREC/18/MonH/33) and Monash University (12260) Human Research Ethics Committees. Our study will provide a comprehensive exploration of person-centred care in an integrated care programme. It will add information to person-centred care literature on participants' perceptions of what works and why, including barriers and enablers to person-centred care in a complex environment. Findings of this study will be disseminated via publications, conferences and presentations to the health service participants.

What is the impact of systems of care for heart failure on patients diagnosed with heart failure: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions for heart failure are predicted to rise substantially over the next decade placing increasing pressure on the health care system. There is an urgent need to redesign systems of care for heart failure to improve evidence-based practice and create seamless transitions through the continuum of care. The aim of the review was to examine systems of care for heart failure that reduce hospital readmissions and/or mortality. METHOD: Electronic databases searched were: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, grey literature, reviewed bibliographies and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials and cohort studies from 1st January 2008 to 4th August 2015. Inclusion criteria for studies were: English language, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials and cohort studies of systems of care for patients diagnosed with heart failure and aimed at reducing hospital readmissions and/or mortality. Three reviewer authors independently assessed articles for eligibility based on title and abstract and then full-text. Quality of evidence was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised trials and GRADE rating tool for randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: We included 29 articles reporting on systems of care in the workforce, primary care, in-hospital, transitional care, outpatients and telemonitoring. Several studies found that access to a specialist heart failure team/service reduced hospital readmissions and mortality. In primary care, a collaborative model of care where the primary physician shared the care with a cardiologist, improved patient outcomes compared to a primary physician only. During hospitalisation, quality improvement programs improved the quality of inpatient care resulting in reduced hospital readmissions and mortality. In the transitional care phase, heart failure programs, nurse-led clinics, and early outpatient follow-up reduced hospital readmissions. There was a lack of evidence as to the efficacy of telemonitoring with many studies finding conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: Redesigning systems of care aimed at improving the translation of evidence into clinical practice and transitional care can potentially improve patient outcomes in a cohort of patients known for high readmission rates and mortality.

A systematic approach to chronic heart failure care: a consensus statement.

The National Heart Foundation of Australia assembled an expert panel to provide guidance on policy and system changes to improve the quality of care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF). The recommendations have the potential to reduce emergency presentations, hospitalisations and premature death among patients with CHF. Best-practice management of CHF involves evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centred care, which leads to better health outcomes. A CHF care model is required to achieve this. Although CHF management programs exist, ensuring access for everyone remains a challenge. This is particularly so for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, those from non-metropolitan areas and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Lack of data and inadequate identification of people with CHF prevents efficient patient monitoring, limiting information to improve or optimise care. This leads to ineffectiveness in measuring outcomes and evaluating the CHF care provided. Expanding current cardiac registries to include patients with CHF and developing mechanisms to promote data linkage across care transitions are essential. As the prevalence of CHF rises, the demand for multidisciplinary workforce support will increase. Workforce planning should provide access to services outside of large cities, one of the main challenges it is currently facing. To enhance community-based management of CHF, general practitioners should be empowered to lead care. Incentive arrangements should favour provision of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and rural areas, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Ongoing research is vital to improving systems of care for people with CHF. Future research activity needs to ensure the translation of valuable knowledge and high-quality evidence into practice.