Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration

Determinants of the implementation of eHealth-based long-term follow-up care for young cancer survivors: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

eHealth may help closing gaps in the long-term follow-up care of former young age cancer patients. While its introduction to medical aftercare appears promising, it also faces obstacles in the course of its implementation. This study explored what prospective eHealth applications have to achieve and what facilitating and hindering factors are associated with the implementation of them.

METHODS

A qualitative, explorative-descriptive design involving semi-structured interviews was used in this study. General practitioners (GPs) from urban and rural areas as well as former cancer patients were recruited and interviewed. The interview guide focused on expectations of telemedical care services for the patient group of children and adolescents as well as potential facilitating and hindering factors of the implementation of telemedical care services for former cancer patients. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed on the basis of qualitative content analysis as described by Kuckartz.

RESULTS

Empiric saturation was reached after 25 interviews, respectively. The age of the physicians surveyed at the time of the interviews ranged from 27 to 71 years, with an average of 42 years. The former patients ranged in age from 21 to 43 at the time of participation, with an average age of 34. The age at diagnosis ranged from 3 to 31 years. eHealth services were considered an effective way to maintain continuity of care and improve the health literacy of cancer survivors. Cooperation with health insurance companies and gamification-elements were regarded as beneficial for the introduction of eHealth structures. Poor interface compatibility, insufficient network coverage and lack of digital literacy were valued as potential barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

If properly introduced, eHealth shows the potential to provide stakeholders with tools that increase their self-efficacy and ability to act. As the technology continues to advance, our data provides application-oriented factors for tailored implementation strategies to bring eHealth into the field.

Development of an implementation science informed "Test Evidence Transition" program to improve cancer outcomes

Introduction

Translation of cancer research into practice takes around 15 years. Programs informed by implementation science methods and frameworks offer potential to improve cancer outcomes by addressing the implementation gap.

Methods

We describe the development of a Test Evidence Transition (TET) program which provides funding and support to health system delivery teams and project design and evaluation partners working together to achieve three objectives: Test innovations to support optimal cancer pathways that transform clinical practice; Evidence the process, outcome, and impact of implementation; and work with strategic partners to ensure the Transition of best practice into effective and equitable adoption across UK health systems.

Results

Phase 1 launched in April 2023. Teams with the capability and motivation to implement evidence-based pathway innovations were identified and invited to submit expressions of interest. Following peer-review, teams were supported to develop full proposals with input from academics specializing in health services research, evaluation, and implementation science. Projects were selected for funding, providing an opportunity to implement and evaluate innovations with support from academic and health system partners.

Conclusions

TET aims to improve cancer outcomes by identifying and addressing local-level barriers to evidence-based practice and translating findings into consistent and equitable adoption across health systems. Phase 1 projects focus on pathway innovations in diagnosis for breast and prostate cancer. We are now launching Phase 2, focusing on colorectal cancer.

Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation: a Mixed Methods Pilot Feasibility Study

We conducted a mixed methods pilot feasibility study of a Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation (SEDDI) process to facilitate using healthcare data to identify patient groups experiencing gaps in the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and rapidly adapt EBIs to achieve greater access and equitable outcomes. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of SEDDI in a pilot hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of a paired colorectal cancer (CRC) and social needs screening intervention at four federally qualified community health centers (CHCs). An external facilitator partnered with CHC teams to support initial implementation, followed by the SEDDI phase focused on advancing health equity. Facilitation sessions were delivered over 8 months. Preliminary evaluation of SEDDI involved convergent mixed methods with quantitative survey and focus group data. CHCs used data to identify gaps in outreach and completion of CRC screening with respect to race/ethnicity, gender, age, and language. Adaptations to improve access and use of the intervention included cultural, linguistic, and health literacy tailoring. CHC teams reported that facilitation and systematic review of data were helpful in identifying and prioritizing gaps. None of the four CHCs completed rapid cycle testing of adaptations largely due to competing priorities during the COVID-19 response. SEDDI has the potential for advancing chronic disease prevention and management by providing a stakeholder and data-driven approach to identify and prioritize health equity targets and guide adaptations to improve health equity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04585919.

Virtual quality improvement collaborative with primary care practices during COVID-19: a case study within a clinically integrated network

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are a common approach to facilitate practice change and improve care delivery. Attention to QIC implementation processes and outcomes can inform best practices for designing and delivering collaborative content. In partnership with a clinically integrated network, we evaluated implementation outcomes for a virtual QIC with independent primary care practices delivered during COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal case study evaluation of a virtual QIC in which practices participated in bimonthly online meetings and monthly tailored QI coaching sessions from July 2020 to June 2021. Implementation outcomes included: (1) level of engagement (meeting attendance and poll questions), (2) QI capacity (assessments completed by QI coaches), (3) use of QI tools (plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles started and completed) and (4) participant perceptions of acceptability (interviews and surveys).

RESULTS

Seven clinics from five primary care practices participated in the virtual QIC. Of the seven sites, five were community health centres, three were in rural counties and clinic size ranged from 1 to 7 physicians. For engagement, all practices had at least one member attend all online QIC meetings and most (9/11 (82%)) poll respondents reported meeting with their QI coach at least once per month. For QI capacity, practice-level scores showed improvements in foundational, intermediate and advanced QI work. For QI tools used, 26 PDCA cycles were initiated with 9 completed. Most (10/11 (91%)) survey respondents were satisfied with their virtual QIC experience. Twelve interviews revealed additional themes such as challenges in obtaining real-time data and working with multiple electronic medical record systems.

DISCUSSION

A virtual QIC conducted with independent primary care practices during COVID-19 resulted in high participation and satisfaction. QI capacity and use of QI tools increased over 1 year. These implementation outcomes suggest that virtual QICs may be an attractive alternative to engage independent practices in QI work.

Model for Doctor of Nursing Practice Projects Based on Cross-Fertilization Between Improvement and Implementation Sciences: Protocol for Quality Improvement and Program Evaluation Studies

BACKGROUND

Hundreds of nursing professionals graduate each year from Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs, entrusted with roles as practice scholars and leaders. Graduates are tasked to lead multidisciplinary knowledge implementation projects to improve safety, quality, and key performance metrics. Nevertheless, there is a continued lack of agreement and faculty dissatisfaction with the format, focus, and results of the DNP graduation projects. The use of a wide range of models and methodologies from different sciences for knowledge implementation introduces challenges to DNP students; affects the scientific rigor of the projects; and results in the overuse, superficial use, or misuse of the models. Quality improvement (QI) and program evaluation studies are substantial investments that may lead to waste and even harm if not well conducted. Traditional QI methodologies, commonly used in DNP projects, were found to be uncertain in improving health care outcomes. The complexity of health care systems calls for cross-fertilization between improvement and implementation sciences to improve health care outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a hybrid model for QI and program evaluation studies to guide scholarship in the DNP program.

METHODS

The hybrid model was based on cross-fertilization between improvement and implementation sciences. The model adapted the Getting to Outcome (GTO) and Knowledge to Action (KTA) models as the overarching process models for knowledge implementation. Within each phase of the GTO and KTA models, expected barriers and facilitators for the implementation and adoption of innovation were identified based on the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). Accordingly, strategies to facilitate the implementation and adoption of innovations were identified based on a refined list of implementation strategies and QI tools. The choice of these models was based on the top 5 criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks. Seven DNP students used the hybrid model to conduct QI projects. Students evaluated their experiences by responding to a Qualtrics survey.

RESULTS

The hybrid model encouraged a comprehensive systematic way of thinking, provided tools essential to implementation success, emphasized the need for adaptability in implementation, maintained rigor in QI, and guided the sustainability of change initiatives. Some of the challenges faced by students included finding reliable and valid measures, attaining and maintaining staff buy-in, and competing organizational priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-fertilization between improvement and implementation sciences provided a roadmap and systematic thinking for successful QI projects in the DNP program. The integration of the CFIR with the GTO or KTA process models, enforced by the use of evidence-based implementation strategies and QI tools, reflected the complexity of health care systems and emphasized the need for adaptability in implementation.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/54213.

Engaging with Rural Communities for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Using Modified Boot Camp Translation

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are disproportionately high among rural residents and Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVES

To address disparities, we used a modified community engagement approach, Boot Camp Translation (BCT). Research partners, an advisory board, and the rural community informed messaging about CRC outreach and a mailed fecal immunochemical test program.

METHODS

Eligible rural patients (English-speaking and ages 50-74) and clinic staff involved in patient outreach participated in a BCT conducted virtually over two months. We applied qualitative analysis to BCT transcripts and field notes.

RESULTS

Key themes included: the importance of directly communicating about the seriousness of cancer, leveraging close clinic-patient relationships, and communicating the test safety, ease, and low cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a modified version of BCT delivered in a virtual format, we were able to successfully capture community input to adapt a CRC outreach program for use in rural settings. Program materials will be tested during a pragmatic trial to address rural CRC screening disparities.

Global Cancer Drug Development-A Report From the 2022 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation Meeting

Rapidly expanding systemic treatment options, combined with improved screening, diagnostic, surgical, and radiotherapy techniques, have led to improved survival outcomes for many cancers over time. However, these overall survival gains have disproportionately benefited patients in high-income countries, whereas patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to experience challenges in accessing timely and guideline concordant care. In September 2022, the Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation workshop was held, focusing on global cancer drug development. Panelists discussed key barriers such as the lack of diagnostic services and human resources, drug accessibility and affordability, lack of research infrastructure, and regulatory and authorization challenges, with a particular focus on Africa and Latin America. Potential opportunities to improve access and affordability were reviewed, such as the importance of prioritizing investments in diagnostics, investing health infrastructure and work force planning, coordinated drug procurement efforts and streamlined regulatory processing, incentivized pricing through regulatory change, and the importance of developing and promoting clinical trials that can answer relevant clinical questions for patients in LMICs. As a cancer community, we must continue to advocate for and work toward equitable access to high-quality interventions for patients, regardless of their geographical location.

Integrating Implementation Science with Quality Improvement to Improve Perinatal Outcomes

Implementation science is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to contribute generalizable knowledge that can improve the translation of clinical evidence in routine care. To promote the integration of implementation science approaches with health care quality improvement, the authors offer a framework that links the Model for Improvement with implementation strategies and methods. Perinatal quality improvement teams can leverage the robust frameworks of implementation science to diagnose implementation barriers, select implementation strategies, and assess the strategies' contribution to improving care. Partnerships between implementation scientists and quality improvement teams could accelerate efforts by both groups to achieve measurable improvements in care.

Improving colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care: Preliminary effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative mailed fecal immunochemical test pilot

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. We piloted a collaborative mailed FIT program with health plans and rural clinics to evaluate preliminary effectiveness and refine implementation strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a single-arm study using a convergent, parallel mixed-methods design to evaluate the implementation of a collaborative mailed FIT program. Enrollees were identified using health plan claims and confirmed via clinic scrub. The intervention included a vendor-delivered automated phone call (auto-call) prompt, FIT mailing, and reminder auto-call; clinics were encouraged to make live reminder calls. Practice facilitation was the primary implementation strategy. At 12 months post mailing, we assessed the rates of: (1) mailed FIT return and (2) completion of any CRC screening. We took fieldnotes and conducted postintervention key informant interviews to assess implementation outcomes (eg, feasibility, acceptability, and adaptations).

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-nine Medicaid or Medicare enrollees were mailed a FIT. Over the 12-month intervention, 62 participants (37%) completed screening of which 21% completed the mailed FIT (most were returned within 3 months), and 15% screened by other methods (FITs distributed in-clinic, colonoscopy). Enrollee demographics and the reminder call may encourage mailed FIT completion. Program feasibility and acceptability was high and supported by perceived positive benefit, alignment with existing workflows, adequate staffing, and practice facilitation.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative health plan-clinic mailed FIT programs are feasible and acceptable for implementation in rural clinics and support CRC screening completion. Studies that pragmatically test collaborative approaches to mailed FIT and patient navigation follow-up after abnormal FIT and support broad scale-up in rural settings are needed.

Improve-mentation for Faster Testing and Spread of Health Service Delivery Innovations

Can we speed the testing, implementation and spread of management innovations in a systematic way to also contribute to scientific knowledge? Researchers and implementers have developed an approach to test and revise a local version of an innovation during its implementation. The chapter starts with a case example of an application of this combination of implementation and quality improvement sciences and practices (improve-mentation). It then summarizes four examples of this approach so as to help understand what improve-mentation is and how it is different from traditional quality improvement and traditional implementation of evidence-based practices. It considers gaps in knowledge that are hindering both more use of improve-mentation to generate scientific knowledge about spread and implementation, as well as more use of improve-mentation by health care service organizations and researchers. It closes by proposing fruitful research and development that can address these knowledge gaps to speed the implementation, sustainment and spread of care and management innovations.

Advancing rapid adaptation for urgent public health crises: Using implementation science to facilitate effective and efficient responses

Responding rapidly to emerging public health crises is vital to reducing their escalation, spread, and impact on population health. These responses, however, are challenging and disparate processes for researchers and practitioners. Researchers often develop new interventions that take significant time and resources, with little exportability. In contrast, community-serving systems are often poorly equipped to properly adopt new interventions or adapt existing ones in a data-driven way during crises' onset and escalation. This results in significant delays in deploying evidence-based interventions (EBIs) with notable public health consequences. This prolonged timeline for EBI development and implementation results in significant morbidity and mortality that is costly and preventable. As public health emergencies have demonstrated (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), the negative consequences often exacerbate existing health disparities. Implementation science has the potential to bridge the extant gap between research and practice, and enhance equity in rapid public health responses, but is underutilized. For the field to have a greater "real-world" impact, it needs to be more rapid, iterative, participatory, and work within the timeframes of community-serving systems. This paper focuses on rapid adaptation as a developing implementation science area to facilitate system responses during public health crises. We highlight frameworks to guide rapid adaptation for optimizing existing EBIs when responding to urgent public health issues. We also explore the economic implications of rapid adaptation. Resource limitations are frequently a central reason for implementation failure; thus, we consider the economic impacts of rapid adaptation. Finally, we provide examples and propose directions for future research and application.

Implementation and Feasibility of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated Patient-Reported Outcomes Symptom and Needs Monitoring Pilot in Ambulatory Oncology

PURPOSE

Describe the feasibility and implementation of an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated symptom and needs screening and referral system in a diverse racial/ethnic patient population in ambulatory oncology.

METHODS

Data were collected from an ambulatory oncology clinic at the University of Miami Health System from October 2019 to January 2021. Guided by a Patient Advisory Board and the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment model, My Wellness Check was developed to assess physical and psychologic symptoms and needs of ambulatory oncology patients before appointments to triage them to supportive services when elevated symptoms (eg, depression), barriers to care (eg, transportation and childcare), and nutritional needs were identified. Patients were assigned assessments at each appointment no more than once in a 30-day period starting at the second visit. Assessments were available in English and Spanish to serve the needs of the predominantly Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latino population.

RESULTS

From 1,232 assigned assessments, more than half (n = 739 assessments; 60.0%) were initiated by 506 unique patients. A total of 65.4% of English and 49.9% of Spanish assessments were initiated. Among all initiated assessments, the majority (85.1%) were completed at home via the patient portal. The most common endorsed items were nutritional needs (32.9%), followed by emotional symptoms (ie, depression and anxiety; 27.8%), practical needs (eg, financial concerns; 21.7%), and physical symptoms (17.6%). Across the physical symptom, social work, and nutrition-related alerts, 77.1%, 99.7%, and 78.8%, were addressed, respectively, by the corresponding oncology health professional, social work team member, or nutritionist.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate encouraging feasibility and initial acceptability of implementing an EHR-integrated symptom and needs screening and referral system among diverse oncology patients. To our knowledge, this is the first EHR-integrated symptom and needs screening system implemented in routine oncology care for Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos.

Bridging the Silos: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation Science and Improvement Science

Background

Implementation science and improvement science have similar goals of improving health care services for better patient and population outcomes, yet historically there has been limited exchange between the two fields. Implementation science was born out of the recognition that research findings and effective practices should be more systematically disseminated and applied in various settings to achieve improved health and welfare of populations. Improvement science has grown out of the wider quality improvement movement, but a fundamental difference between quality improvement and improvement science is that the former generates knowledge for local improvement, whereas the latter is aimed at producing generalizable scientific knowledge.

Objectives

The first objective of this paper is to characterise and contrast implementation science and improvement science. The second objective, building on the first, is to highlight aspects of improvement science that potentially could inform implementation science and vice versa.

Methods

We used a critical literature review approach. Search methods included systematic literature searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until October 2021; reviewing references in identified articles and books; and the authors' own cross-disciplinary knowledge of key literature.

Findings

The comparative analysis of the fields of implementation science and improvement science centred on six categories: (1) influences; (2) ontology, epistemology and methodology; (3) identified problem; (4) potential solutions; (5) analytical tools; and (6) knowledge production and use. The two fields have different origins and draw mostly on different sources of knowledge, but they have a shared goal of using scientific methods to understand and explain how health care services can be improved for their users. Both describe problems in terms of a gap or chasm between current and optimal care delivery and consider similar strategies to address the problems. Both apply a range of analytical tools to analyse problems and facilitate appropriate solutions.

Conclusions

Implementation science and improvement science have similar endpoints but different starting points and academic perspectives. To bridge the silos between the fields, increased collaboration between implementation and improvement scholars will help to clarify the differences and connections between the science and practice of improvement, to expand scientific application of quality improvement tools, to further address contextual influences on implementation and improvement efforts, and to share and use theory to support strategy development, delivery and evaluation.

Aligning implementation science with improvement practice: a call to action

Background

In several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice. Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems’ existing improvement infrastructure and practice.

Main body

We describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network.

Conclusion

To effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00201-1.

Different approaches to making and testing change in healthcare

Greg Ogrinc and colleagues call for greater exploitation of the synergies between quality improvement and implementation science in improving care

Impact of innovation in oncology: more questions than answers

Oncology is going through the fastest innovation period in the history of medicine and a growing number of patients improve or experience increased chances of survival. The declining death rate, starting from 1991, resulted in 2.9 million deaths avoided in the United States so far. A growing prevalence of patients is observed in all Western countries. New cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016, linked to other diagnostic, surgical, and health care improvements, were significantly associated with death reduction for the most common cancers. Alongside many positive aspects, other effects of innovations in oncology also deserve attention, especially challenges associated with the substantial increase of knowledge volume, the sharp growth of prevalence, and a concomitant or consequent increase in clinical, social, and organizational complexity. We analyse some of the consequences of oncology innovation on healthcare systems and professionals and present some suggestions on how these could be addressed by healthcare systems.

Integration of Improvement and Implementation Science in Practice-Based Research Networks: a Longitudinal, Comparative Case Study

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) and quality improvement (QI) inhabit distinct areas of scholarly literature, but are often blended in practice. Because practice-based research networks (PBRNs) draw from both traditions, their experience could inform opportunities for strategic IS-QI alignment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine IS, QI, and IS/QI projects conducted within a PBRN over time to identify similarities, differences, and synergies.

DESIGN

Longitudinal, comparative case study of projects conducted in the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) from January 2007 to January 2019.

APPROACH

We reviewed documents and conducted staff interviews. We classified projects as IS, QI, IS/QI, or other using established criteria. We abstracted project details (e.g., objective, setting, theoretical framework) and used qualitative synthesis to compare projects by classification and to identify the contributions of IS and QI within the same project.

KEY RESULTS

Almost 30% (26/99) of ORPRN's projects included IS or QI elements; 54% (14/26) were classified as IS/QI. All 26 projects used an evidence-based intervention and shared many similarities in relation to objective and setting. Over half of the IS and IS/QI projects used randomized designs and theoretical frameworks, while no QI projects did. Projects displayed an upward trend in complexity over time. Project used a similar number of practice change strategies; however, projects classified as IS predominantly employed education/training while all IS/QI and most QI projects used practice facilitation. Projects including IS/QI elements demonstrated the following contributions: QI provides the mechanism by which the principles of IS are operationalized in order to support local practice change and IS in turn provides theories to inform implementation and evaluation to produce generalizable knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of projects conducted over a 12-year period in one PBRN demonstrates key synergies for IS and QI. Strategic alignment of IS/QI within projects may help improve care quality and bridge the research-practice gap.

Relevant Journals for Identifying Implementation Science Articles: Results of an International Implementation Science Expert Survey

In implementation science (IS), conducting well-targeted and reproducible literature searches is challenging due to non-specific and varying terminology that is fragmented over multiple disciplines. A list of journals that publish IS-relevant content for use in search strings can support this process. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 56 Australian, European, and North American IS experts to identify and prioritize relevant journals that publish IS articles. Journals' relevance was assessed by providing each with a list of 12 journals, to which they were encouraged to add additional journal names and comments as free text. We also assessed which journals had published special IS-focused issues—identified via PubMed and Google searches—over the last 20 years. Data were analyzed descriptively. Between February 28 and March 15, 2020, a purposive sample of 34/56 experts participated in the survey (response rate: 60.7%). Implementation Science and BMC Health Services Research were perceived as relevant by 97.1% of participants; other journals' relevance varied internationally. Experts proposed 50 additional journals from various clinical fields and health science disciplines. We identified 12 calls and 53 special issues on IS published within various journals and research fields. Experts' comments confirmed the described challenges in identifying IS literature. This report presents experts' ratings of IS journals, which can be included in strategies supporting searches of IS evidence. However, challenges in identifying IS evidence remain geographically and interdisciplinary. Further investment is needed to develop reproducible search strings to capture IS evidence as an important step in improving IS research quality.