Development of a conversation approach for practice nurses aimed at making shared decisions on goals and action plans with primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Primary care nurses play a crucial role in setting personal goals and action plans together with chronically ill patients. This may be a challenge for practice nurses, who are often trained to adopt protocol-based work routines. The aim of this study was to systematically develop a conversation approach, and a corresponding training course, for practice nurses aimed at making shared decisions about goals and actions with their chronically ill patients. METHODS: The 6-step iterative Intervention Mapping protocol was used as a framework. This paper describes the first four steps of the protocol. After the first step, in which literature studies as well as qualitative studies were conducted, the overall aim and objectives for the approach were formulated (step 2). In step 3, methods and strategies for the approach were chosen, which were translated into practical components in step 4. In addition, a pilot study was conducted. RESULTS: The main objectives of the approach focus on the ability of practice nurses to explore the patients' perspectives from a holistic point of view, to explicitly formulate goals and action plans, to tailor shared decision making about goals and action plans to individual patients, and to continuously reflect on work-related attitudes. The approach consists of a practical framework for shared decision making about goals and actions. The framework involves a tool for exploring patients' perspectives and a tool for identifying patient profiles, to facilitate tailoring shared decision making. A comprehensive training course for practice nurses was developed. CONCLUSION: We systematically developed a conversation approach, involving a practical framework with several tools, which aims to support practice nurses in making shared decisions about goals and actions with their patients. As practice nurses need support in their learning process to be able to share decisions with patients, we also developed a comprehensive training course for them. The approach and the training course were developed in close collaboration with important stakeholders. Some critical factors for the implementation of the approach were revealed. These factors will be addressed in the next step, a process evaluation (not part of this paper).

What makes it so difficult for nurses to coach patients in shared decision making? A process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Primary care nurses play a crucial role in coaching patients in shared decision making about goals and actions. This presents a challenge to practice nurses, who are frequently used to protocol-based working routines. Therefore, an approach was developed to support nurses to coach patients in shared decision making. OBJECTIVES: To investigate how the approach was implemented and experienced by practice nurses and patients. DESIGN: A process evaluation was conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen female practice nurses (aged between 28 and 55 years), working with people suffering from diabetes, COPD, asthma and/or cardiovascular diseases, participated. Nurses were asked to apply the approach to their chronically ill patients and to recruit patients (n = 10) willing to participate in an interview or an audio-recording of a consultation (n = 13); patients (13 women, 10 men) were aged between 41 and 88 years and suffered from diabetes, COPD or cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: The approach involved a framework for shared decision making about goals and actions, a tool to explore the patient perspective, a patient profiles model and a training course. Interviews (n = 15) with nurses, a focus group with nurses (n = 9) and interviews with patients (n = 10) were conducted. Nurses filled in a questionnaire about their work routine before, during and after the training course. They were asked to deliver audiotapes of their consultations (n = 13). RESULTS: Overall, nurses felt that the approach supported them to coach patients in shared decision making. Nurses had become more aware of their own attitudes and learning needs and reported to have had more in-depth discussions with patients. The on-the-job coaching was experienced as valuable. However, nurses struggled to integrate the approach in routine care. They experienced the approach as different to their protocol-based routines and expressed the importance of receiving support and the need for integration of the approach into the family physician practice. CONCLUSION: This study shows that changing practice nurses' role from medical experts to coaches in shared decision making is very complex and requires paying attention to skills and attitudes, as well as to contextual factors. Our results indicate that more time and training might be needed for this role transition. Moreover, it might be worthwhile to focus on organizational learning, in order to increase an organization's capacity to change work routines in a collaborative process. Future research into the development and evaluation of health coaching approaches, focusing on shared decision making, is necessary.

Disentangling self-management goal setting and action planning: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing rise in the numbers of chronically ill people necessitates efforts for effective self-management. Goal setting and action planning are frequently used, as they are thought to support patients in changing their behavior. However, it remains unclear how goal setting and action planning in the context of self-management are defined in the scientific literature. This study aimed to achieve a better understanding of the various definitions used. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, searching PubMed, Cinahl, PsychINFO and Cochrane. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated to ensure the focus on goal setting/action planning and self-management. The literature was updated to December 2015; data selection and charting was done by two reviewers. A qualitative content analysis approach was used. RESULTS: Out of 9115 retrieved articles, 58 met the inclusion criteria. We created an overview of goal setting phases that were applied (preparation, formulation of goals, formulation of action plan, coping planning and follow-up). Although the phases we found are in accordance with commonly known frameworks for goal setting, it was striking that the majority of studies (n = 39, 67%) did not include all phases. We also prepared an overview of components and strategies for each goal setting phase. Interestingly, few strategies were found for the communication between patients and professionals about goals/action plans. Most studies (n = 35, 60%) focused goal setting on one single disease and on a predefined lifestyle behavior; nearly half of the articles (n = 27, 47%) reported a theoretical framework. DISCUSSION: The results might provide practical support for developers of interventions. Moreover, our results might encourage professionals to become more aware of the phases of the goal setting process and of strategies emphasizing on patient reflection. However, more research might be useful to examine strategies to facilitate communication about goals/action plans. It might also be worthwhile to develop and evaluate goal setting/action planning strategies for people with different and multiple chronic conditions.

Interprofessional primary care team meetings: a qualitative approach comparing observations with personal opinions.

BACKGROUND: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions. METHODS: Qualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation. CONCLUSION: IPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members' awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges.

What does it take to set goals for self-management in primary care? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing number of patients with a chronic illness demanding primary care services. This demands for effective self-management support, including collaborative goal setting. Despite the fact that primary care professionals seem to have difficulties implementing goal setting, little information is available about the factors influencing the complexity of this process in primary care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to contribute to an understanding of the complexity of self-management goal setting in primary care by exploring experts' and primary care professionals' experiences with self-management goal setting and viewpoints regarding influencing factors. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative research methodology was adopted. Two focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted (total participants n = 17). Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The findings were categorized into four main themes with subordinated subthemes. The themes focus around the complexity of setting non-medical goals and around professionals' skills and attitudes to negotiate and decide about goals with patients. Furthermore, patients' skills and attitudes for goal setting and the integration of goal setting in the time available were formulated as themes. CONCLUSIONS: Setting self-management goals in primary care, especially in family medicine, might require a shift from a medical perspective to a biopsychosocial perspective, with an increasing role set aside for the professional to coach the patient in expressing his self-management goals and to take responsibility for these goals.

Interprofessional collaboration regarding patients' care plans in primary care: a focus group study into influential factors.

BACKGROUND: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions demanding primary care services is increasing. To deal with the complex health care demands of these people, professionals from different disciplines collaborate. This study aims to explore influential factors regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development in primary care. METHODS: A qualitative study, including four semi-structured focus group interviews (n = 4). In total, a heterogeneous group of experts (n = 16) and health care professionals (n = 15) participated. Participants discussed viewpoints, barriers, and facilitators regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development. The data were analysed by means of inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The findings show a variety of factors influencing the interprofessional collaboration in developing a care plan. Factors can be divided into 5 key categories: (1) patient-related factors: active role, self-management, goals and wishes, membership of the team; (2) professional-related factors: individual competences, domain thinking, motivation; (3) interpersonal factors: language differences, knowing each other, trust and respect, and motivation; (4) organisational factors: structure, composition, time, shared vision, leadership and administrative support; and (5) external factors: education, culture, hierarchy, domain thinking, law and regulations, finance, technology and ICT. CONCLUSIONS: Improving interprofessional collaboration regarding care plan development calls for an integral approach including patient- and professional related factors, interpersonal, organisational, and external factors. Further, the leader of the team seems to play a key role in watching the patient perspective, organising and coordinating interprofessional collaborations, and guiding the team through developments. The results of this study can be used as input for developing tools and interventions targeted at executing and improving interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development.