Open Access Research

Why a successful task substitution in glaucoma care could not be transferred from a hospital setting to a primary care setting: a qualitative study

Kim M Holtzer-Goor1*, Thomas Plochg2, Hans G Lemij3, Esther van Sprundel34, Marc A Koopmanschap1 and Niek S Klazinga2

Author Affiliations

1 Institute for Health Policy and Management/Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

2 Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

3 Glaucoma service, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

4 Glaucoma Research Unit, The Netherlands and Rotterdam Ophthalmic Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

For all author emails, please log on.

Implementation Science 2013, 8:14  doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-14

Published: 25 January 2013

Abstract

Background

Healthcare systems are challenged by a demand that exceeds available resources. One policy to meet this challenge is task substitution-transferring tasks to other professions and settings. Our study aimed to explore stakeholders’ perceived feasibility of transferring hospital-based monitoring of stable glaucoma patients to primary care optometrists.

Methods

A case study was undertaken in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) using semi-structured interviews and document reviews. They were inductively analysed using three implementation related theoretical perspectives: sociological theories on professionalism, management theories, and applied political analysis.

Results

Currently it is not feasible to use primary care optometrists as substitutes for optometrists and ophthalmic technicians working in a hospital-based glaucoma follow-up unit (GFU). Respondents’ narratives revealed that: the glaucoma specialists’ sense of urgency for task substitution outside the hospital diminished after establishing a GFU that satisfied their professionalization needs; the return on investments were unclear; and reluctant key stakeholders with strong power positions blocked implementation. The window of opportunity that existed for task substitution in person and setting in 1999 closed with the institutionalization of the GFU.

Conclusions

Transferring the monitoring of stable glaucoma patients to primary care optometrists in Rotterdam did not seem feasible. The main reasons were the lack of agreement on professional boundaries and work domains, the institutionalization of the GFU in the REH, and the absence of an appropriate reimbursement system. Policy makers considering substituting tasks to other professionals should carefully think about the implementation process, especially in a two-step implementation process (substitution in person and in setting) such as this case. Involving the substituting professionals early on to ensure all stakeholders see the change as a normal step in the professionalization of the substituting professionals is essential, as is implementing the task substitution within the window of opportunity.

Keywords:
Diffusion of innovation; Access to health care; Quality of health care