Lessons learned from implementing a digital rehabilitation care planning platform to improve care access for patients with work disability: qualitative process evaluation of the RehaPro-SERVE study.
Case conferences
Case management
Complex intervention
Digital platform
Interdisciplinary care planning
Primary care
Process evaluation
Rehabilitation
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Oct 2024
29 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
05
07
2024
accepted:
16
10
2024
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Inpatient rehabilitation therapies can be applied for in Germany by patients of working age to support their return to work. However, there are some problems that impede an easy and uncomplicated application process. An interdisciplinary case management approach for rehabilitation care planning was developed to facilitate the access to rehabilitation. Case conferences (CCs) were held with relevant stakeholders and took place on a digital communication platform. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation to understand the implementation of the intervention and to identify contextual factors as well as mechanisms for a successful implementation in the context of primary care. The process evaluation included interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs), patients and stakeholders involved in the intervention process. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Emerging themes were structured according to the Donabedian framework of structure, process and outcomes. A total of 18 interviews were conducted. Important results included the desire for more patient involvement and case management. Patients especially valued the opportunity to receive support from a social worker. Limitations of the platform related to usability and limited opportunities for stakeholder communication. Despite training for PCPs, several problems arose regarding the clarity of the intervention process. Patients were satisfied with their application process and the treatments offered, while PCPs reported an increase in workload. A digitalisation of the application procedure for rehabilitation and further treatment options is acceptable to patients and personal support of a social worker is particularly valued. However, patients should be included in the CC in terms of a shared decision-making process. The digital platform requires sufficient training and adjustments have to be made to enhance usability and to improve the efficiency of the process for PCPs. Overall, the exchange between the various stakeholders in the CC is considered particularly useful in more complex cases. DRKS German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS0 00242 07. Registered on 22 March 2021.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Inpatient rehabilitation therapies can be applied for in Germany by patients of working age to support their return to work. However, there are some problems that impede an easy and uncomplicated application process. An interdisciplinary case management approach for rehabilitation care planning was developed to facilitate the access to rehabilitation. Case conferences (CCs) were held with relevant stakeholders and took place on a digital communication platform. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation to understand the implementation of the intervention and to identify contextual factors as well as mechanisms for a successful implementation in the context of primary care.
METHODS
METHODS
The process evaluation included interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs), patients and stakeholders involved in the intervention process. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Emerging themes were structured according to the Donabedian framework of structure, process and outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 18 interviews were conducted. Important results included the desire for more patient involvement and case management. Patients especially valued the opportunity to receive support from a social worker. Limitations of the platform related to usability and limited opportunities for stakeholder communication. Despite training for PCPs, several problems arose regarding the clarity of the intervention process. Patients were satisfied with their application process and the treatments offered, while PCPs reported an increase in workload.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A digitalisation of the application procedure for rehabilitation and further treatment options is acceptable to patients and personal support of a social worker is particularly valued. However, patients should be included in the CC in terms of a shared decision-making process. The digital platform requires sufficient training and adjustments have to be made to enhance usability and to improve the efficiency of the process for PCPs. Overall, the exchange between the various stakeholders in the CC is considered particularly useful in more complex cases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
DRKS German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS0 00242 07. Registered on 22 March 2021.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39468506
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11778-3
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11778-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1299Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Seifart U, Schmielau J. Return to work of Cancer survivors. Oncol Res Treat. 2017;40(12):760–3.
doi: 10.1159/000485079
pubmed: 29183032
Bethge M, Müller-Fahrnow W. Wirksamkeit einer intensivierten stationären Rehabilitation bei muskuloskelettalen Erkrankungen: systematischer Review und Meta-Analyse. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2008;47(4):200–9.
doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1077091
pubmed: 18704869
Haaf H-G. Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit der Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2005;44(5):259–76.
doi: 10.1055/s-2005-867015
pubmed: 16208590
Schubert M, Fiala K, Grundke S, Parthier K, Behrens J, Klement A. Der Zugang zu medizinischer Rehabilitation aus Perspektive niedergelassener Ärzte – Probleme und Optimierungsmöglichkeiten. Phys Rehab Kur Med. 2012;22(05):264–70.
doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1314882
Schencking M. Rehabilitations– und Kurmedizin in Deutschland – Hausärzte stellen die Weichen. Notfall Hausarztmedizin. 2009;35(05):237–40.
doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1225465
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund., Rentenversicherung. in Zeitreihen; 2022 [cited 2023 Apr 3]. Available from: URL: https://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Statistiken-und-Berichte/statistikpublikationen/rv_in_zeitreihen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 .
Mittag O, Welti F. Medizinische Rehabilitation im europäischen Vergleich und Auswirkungen des europäischen Rechts auf die deutsche Rehabilitation. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2017;60(4):378–85.
doi: 10.1007/s00103-017-2516-y
pubmed: 28224186
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund. Reha-Bericht 2023: Die medizinische und berufliche Rehabilitation Die medizinische und berufliche Rehabilitation der Rentenversicherung im Licht der Statistik. Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund; 2023.
Pohontsch N, Träder J-M, Scherer M, Deck R. Empfehlungen zur Überwindung von Schnittstellenproblemen in der medizinischen Rehabilitation der gesetzlichen Renten- und Krankenversicherung. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2013;52(5):322–8.
doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1330005
pubmed: 23749619
Deck R, Träder J-M, Raspe H. Identifikation von potenziellem Reha-Bedarf in der Hausarztpraxis: Idee und Wirklichkeit. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2009;48(2):73–83.
doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1102952
pubmed: 19421938
Mitchell GK, Tieman JJ, Shelby-James TM. Multidisciplinary care planning and teamwork in primary care. Med J Aust. 2008;188(S8):S61-4.
doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01747.x
pubmed: 18429739
Powell Davies G, Williams AM, Larsen K, Perkins D, Roland M, Harris MF. Coordinating primary health care: an analysis of the outcomes of a systematic review. Med J Aust. 2008;188(S8):S65-8.
doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01748.x
pubmed: 18429740
Iorfino F, Cross SP, Davenport T, Carpenter JS, Scott E, Shiran S. A Digital Platform Designed for Youth Mental Health Services to Deliver Personalized and Measurement-Based Care. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:595.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00595
pubmed: 31507465
pmcid: 6716201
Funke A, Spittel S, Grehl T, Grosskreutz J, Kettemann D, Petri S. Provision of assistive technology devices among people with ALS in Germany: a platform-case management approach. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2018;19(5–6):342–50.
doi: 10.1080/21678421.2018.1431786
pubmed: 29382225
Krausz M, Westenberg JN, Vigo D, Spence RT, Ramsey D. Emergency Response to COVID-19 in Canada: Platform Development and Implementation for eHealth in Crisis Management. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e18995.
doi: 10.2196/18995
pubmed: 32401218
pmcid: 7236607
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655
pubmed: 18824488
pmcid: 2769032
Hasselhorn H-M, Freude G. Der Work-Ability-Index: Ein Leitfaden. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverl. NW Verl. für neue Wiss; 2007. (Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin SonderschriftS 87).
Löffler S, Wolf HD, Vogel H. Das Würzburger Screening Zur Identifikation Von Beruflichen Problemlagen – Entwicklung und Validierung. Gesundheitswesen 2008; 70(07).
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258
pubmed: 25791983
pmcid: 4366184
Seipp H, Becker A, Maulbecker-Armstrong C, Kraicker R, Schneider A. Rehabilitation care planning on a digital communication platform for patients with a work disability: protocol for the RehaPro-SERVE feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7(1):221.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00957-2
pubmed: 34933685
pmcid: 8688904
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
pubmed: 17872937
f4x Automatische Spracherkennung (Online Dienst). dr. dresing & pehl GmbH;. 2024. Available from: URL: https://www.audiotranskription.de/f4x/ .
MAXQDA., Berlin. : VERBI – Software. Consult. Sozialforschung. GmbH; 2023. Available from: URL: https://www.maxqda.com/de .
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.
doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Donabedian A. Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care. Milbank Q. 1966;44(3):166.
doi: 10.2307/3348969
Mitchell PH, Ferketich S, Jennings BM. Quality health outcomes model. American Academy of Nursing Expert Panel on Quality Health Care. Image J Nurs Sch. 1998;30(1):43–6.
doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1998.tb01234.x
pubmed: 9549940
Tossaint-Schoenmakers R, Versluis A, Chavannes N, Talboom-Kamp E, Kasteleyn M. The Challenge of Integrating eHealth Into Health Care: Systematic Literature Review of the Donabedian Model of Structure, Process, and Outcome. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e27180.
doi: 10.2196/27180
pubmed: 33970123
pmcid: 8145079
Elwyn G, Tilburt J, Montori V. The ethical imperative for shared decision-making. EJPCH. 2013;1(1):129.
doi: 10.5750/ejpch.v1i1.645
Garvelink MM, Bos WJW, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? - A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2023;106:3–16.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.09.015
pubmed: 36220675
Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: A conceptual framework. Health Expect. 2018;21(2):429–40.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12640
pubmed: 29151269
Rawlinson C, Carron T, Cohidon C, Arditi C, Hong QN, Pluye P. An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(2):32.
doi: 10.5334/ijic.5589
pubmed: 34220396
pmcid: 8231480