The association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in a national sample

Tracking modifications to implementation strategies: a case study from SNaP - a hybrid type III randomized controlled trial to scale up integrated systems navigation and psychosocial counseling for PWID with HIV in Vietnam

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of implementation strategies is core to implementation trials, but implementation strategies often deviate from the original plan to adjust to the real-world conditions. The optimal approach to track modifications to implementation strategies is unclear, especially in low-resource settings. Using data from an implementation trial for people who inject drugs (PWID) with HIV in Vietnam, we describe the tracking of implementation strategy modifications and present findings of this process.

METHODS

SNaP (Systems Navigation and Psychosocial Counseling) is a hybrid type-III effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial aiming to scale up the evidence-based intervention, integrated systems navigation and psychosocial counseling, for PWID with HIV in Vietnam. Forty-two HIV testing sites were randomized 1:1 to a standard or tailored arm. While the standard arm (SA) received a uniform package of strategies, implementation strategies for the tailored arm (TA) were tailored to address specific needs of each site. The central research team also met monthly with the TA to document how their tailored strategies were implemented over time. Five components were involved in the tracking process: describing the planned strategies; tracking strategy use; monitoring barriers and solutions; describing modifications; and identifying and describing any additional strategies.

RESULTS

Our approach allowed us to closely track the modifications to implementation strategies in the tailored arms every month. TA sites originally identified 27 implementation strategies prior to implementation. During implementation, five strategies were dropped by four sites and two new strategies were added to twelve sites. Modifications of five strategies occurred at four sites to accommodate their changing needs and resources. Difficulties related to the COVID-19 pandemic, low number of participants recruited, high workload at the clinic, lack of resources for HIV testing and high staff turnover were among barriers of implementing the strategies. A few challenges to tracking modifications were noted, including the considerable amount of time and efforts needed as well as the lack of motivation from site staff to track and keep written documentations of modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the feasibility of a systematic approach to tracking implementation strategies for a large-scale implementation trial in a low-resource setting. This process could be further enhanced and replicated in similar settings to balance the rigor and feasibility of implementation strategy tracking. Our findings can serve as additional guidelines for future researchers planning to report and track modifications to implementation strategies in large, complex trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03952520 (first posted 2019-05-16).

Mapping regional implementation of 'Making Every Contact Count': mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation

BACKGROUND

The Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme provides training and materials to support public-facing workers to encourage health-promoting behaviour change by using the day-to-day interactions between organisations and individuals. This project aimed to analyse MECC implementation through a comparative analysis of implementation stage, strategies used for implementation and enablers/barriers of the implementation process within a region in England-the North East and North Cumbria (NENC).

METHODS

A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted applying normalisation process theory and theoretical domains framework. MECC programme documents were reviewed and mapped against specific criteria (eg, implementation strategies). An online mapping survey was conducted to establish current implementation/delivery of MECC within NENC settings (eg, local government, healthcare and voluntary community sector). Qualitative research, using individual interviews and group discussions, was conducted to establish further understanding of MECC implementation.

RESULTS

Our findings were informed by reviewing documents (n=5), surveying participants (n=34), interviews (n=18) and group discussions (n=48). Overall, the implementation of MECC within the region was at an early stage, with training mostly delivered between, rather than within, organisations. Qualitative findings highlighted factors that influence stakeholders to implement MECC (eg, organisational goals that were facilitated by MECC implementation, including the prevention agenda), supported resources that facilitate the implementation of MECC (eg, logic models) and enabling factors that promote MECC sustainability across the region (eg, buy-in from leadership and management).

CONCLUSIONS

The NENC MECC programme is built around regional leadership that supports the implementation process. This process evaluation identified key influences of MECC implementation across the region. We discuss evidence-based recommendation for policy and practice that can be taken forward to develop targeted strategies to support future MECC implementation. For example, a co-ordinated infrastructure and strategy is needed to combat delivery and implementation issues identified.

A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022

BACKGROUND

Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms "implementation strategy", "intervention", "bundle", "support", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes.

FINDINGS

Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.

Organizational and Implementation Factors Associated with Cirrhosis Care in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration provides care to more than 100,000 Veterans with cirrhosis.

AIMS

This implementation evaluation aimed to understand organizational resources and barriers associated with cirrhosis care.

METHODS

Clinicians across 145 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) were surveyed in 2022 about implementing guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. VA Corporate Data Warehouse data were used to assess VAMC performance on two national cirrhosis quality measures: HCC surveillance and esophageal variceal surveillance or treatment (EVST). Organizational factors associated with higher performance were identified using linear regression models.

RESULTS

Responding VAMCs (n = 124, 86%) ranged in resource availability, perceived barriers, and care processes. In multivariable models, factors independently associated with HCC surveillance included on-site interventional radiology and identifying patients overdue for surveillance using a national cirrhosis population management tool ("dashboard"). EVST was significantly associated with dashboard use and on-site gastroenterology services. For larger VAMCs, the average HCC surveillance rate was similar between VAMCs using vs. not using the dashboard (47% vs. 41%), while for smaller and less resourced VAMCs, dashboard use resulted in a 13% rate difference (46% vs. 33%). Likewise, higher EVST rates were more strongly associated with dashboard use in smaller (55% vs. 50%) compared to larger (57% vs. 55%) VAMCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources, barriers, and care processes varied across diverse VAMCs. Smaller VAMCs without specialty care achieved HCC and EVST surveillance rates nearly as high as more complex and resourced VAMCs if they used a population management tool to identify the patients due for cirrhosis care.

An implementation strategy postmortem method developed in the VA rural Transitions Nurse Program to inform spread and scale-up

BACKGROUND

High-quality implementation evaluations report on intervention fidelity and adaptations made, but a practical process for evaluating implementation strategies is needed. A retrospective method for evaluating implementation strategies is also required as prospective methods can be resource intensive. This study aimed to establish an implementation strategy postmortem method to identify the implementation strategies used, when, and their perceived importance. We used the rural Transitions Nurse Program (TNP) as a case study, a national care coordination intervention implemented at 11 hospitals over three years.

METHODS

The postmortem used a retrospective, mixed method, phased approach. Implementation team and front-line staff characterized the implementation strategies used, their timing, frequency, ease of use, and their importance to implementation success. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation, the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative phases, and Proctor and colleagues' guidance were used to operationalize the strategies. Survey data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed using matrix content analysis.

RESULTS

The postmortem method identified 45 of 73 ERIC strategies introduced, including 41 during pre-implementation, 37 during implementation, and 27 during sustainment. External facilitation, centralized technical assistance, and clinical supervision were ranked as the most important and frequently used strategies. Implementation strategies were more intensively applied in the beginning of the study and tapered over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The postmortem method identified that more strategies were used in TNP than planned and identified the most important strategies from the perspective of the implementation team and front-line staff. The findings can inform other implementation studies as well as dissemination of the TNP intervention.

Systematic development of a set of implementation strategies for transitional care innovations in long-term care

BACKGROUND

Numerous transitional care innovations (TCIs) are being developed and implemented to optimize care continuity for older persons when transferring between multiple care settings, help meet their care needs, and ultimately improve their quality of life. Although the implementation of TCIs is influenced by contextual factors, the use of effective implementation strategies is largely lacking. Thus, to improve the implementation of TCIs targeting older persons receiving long-term care services, we systematically developed a set of viable strategies selected to address the influencing factors.

METHODS

As part of the TRANS-SENIOR research network, a stepwise approach following Implementation Mapping (steps 1 to 3) was applied to select implementation strategies. Building on the findings of previous studies, existing TCIs and factors influencing their implementation were identified. A combination of four taxonomies and overviews of change methods as well as relevant evidence on their effectiveness were used to select the implementation strategies targeting each of the relevant factors. Subsequently, individual consultations with scientific experts were performed for further validation of the process of mapping strategies to implementation factors and for capturing alternative ideas on relevant implementation strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty TCIs were identified and 12 influencing factors (mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) were designated as priority factors to be addressed with implementation strategies. A total of 40 strategies were selected. The majority of these target factors at the organizational level, e.g., by using structural redesign, public commitment, changing staffing models, conducting local consensus discussions, and organizational diagnosis and feedback. Strategies at the level of individuals included active learning, belief selection, and guided practice. Each strategy was operationalized into practical applications.

CONCLUSIONS

This project developed a set of theory and evidence-based implementation strategies to address the influencing factors, along further tailoring for each context, and enhance the implementation of TCIs in daily practice settings. Such work is critical to advance the use of implementation science methods to implement innovations in long-term care successfully.

"Now is the time for institutions to be investing in growing exercise programs as part of standard of care": a multiple case study examining the implementation of exercise oncology interventions

BACKGROUND

Implementation science seeks to systematically identify determinants, strategies, and outcomes within a causal pathway to help explain successful implementation. This process is applied to evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to improve their adoption, implementation, and sustainment. However, this method has not been applied to exercise oncology services, meaning we lack knowledge about implementing exercise EBIs in routine practice. This study aimed to develop causal pathways from the determinants, strategies (including mechanism of change), and implementation outcomes to explain exercise EBIs implementation in routine cancer care.

METHODS

A multiple-case study was conducted across three healthcare sites in Australia. Sites selected had implemented exercise within routine care for people diagnosed with cancer and sustained the delivery of services for at least 12 months. Four data sources informed the study: semi-structured interviews with staff, document reviews, observations, and the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (survey). Framework analysis was applied to understand the findings. The Implementation Research Logic Model was used to identify commonalities in implementation across sites and develop causal pathways.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighteen data points informed our findings. Across sites, 18 determinants and 22 implementation strategies were consistent. Sixteen determinants and 24 implementation strategies differed across sites and results of implementation outcomes varied. We identified 11 common pathways that when combined, help explain implementation processes. The mechanisms of implementation strategies operating within the pathways included (1) knowledge, (2) skills, (3) secure resources, (4) optimism, and (5) simplified decision-making processes associated with exercise; (6) relationships (social and professional) and support for the workforce; (7) reinforcing positive outcomes; (8) capability to action plan through evaluations and (9) interactive learning; (10) aligned goals between the organisation and the EBI; and (11) consumer-responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

This study developed causal pathways that explain the how and why of successful implementation of exercise EBIs in cancer care. These findings can support future planning and optimisation activities by creating more opportunities for people with cancer to access evidence-based exercise oncology services.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Understanding how to implement exercise within routine cancer care successfully is important so cancer survivors can experience the benefits of exercise.

Determinants of targeted cancer therapy use in community oncology practice: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Rummler-Brache process mapping

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine holds enormous potential to improve outcomes for cancer patients, offering improved rates of cancer control and quality of life. Not all patients who could benefit from targeted cancer therapy receive it, and some who may not benefit do receive targeted therapy. We sought to comprehensively identify determinants of targeted therapy use among community oncology programs, where most cancer patients receive their care.

METHODS

Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 community cancer care providers and mapped targeted therapy delivery across 11 cancer care delivery teams using a Rummler-Brache diagram. Transcripts were coded to the framework using template analysis, and inductive coding was used to identify key behaviors. Coding was revised until a consensus was reached.

RESULTS

Intention to deliver precision medicine was high across all participants interviewed, who also reported untenable knowledge demands. We identified distinctly different teams, processes, and determinants for (1) genomic test ordering and (2) delivery of targeted therapies. A key determinant of molecular testing was role alignment. The dominant expectation for oncologists to order and interpret genomic tests is at odds with their role as treatment decision-makers' and pathologists' typical role to stage tumors. Programs in which pathologists considered genomic test ordering as part of their staging responsibilities reported high and timely testing rates. Determinants of treatment delivery were contingent on resources and ability to offset delivery costs, which low- volume programs could not do. Rural programs faced additional treatment delivery challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified novel determinants of targeted therapy delivery that potentially could be addressed through role re-alignment. Standardized, pathology-initiated genomic testing may prove fruitful in ensuring patients eligible for targeted therapy are identified, even if the care they need cannot be delivered at small and rural sites which may have distinct challenges in treatment delivery. Incorporating behavior specification and Rummler-Brache process mapping with determinant analysis may extend its usefulness beyond the identification of the need for contextual adaptation.

The road to pandemic recovery: Tracking COVID-19's impact on cirrhosis care and outcomes among 111,558 Veterans

BACKGROUND AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate quarterly trends in process and health outcomes among Veterans with cirrhosis and assess the factors associated with cirrhosis outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

APPROACH RESULTS

US Veterans with cirrhosis were identified using the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. Quarterly measures were evaluated from September 30, 2018, through March 31, 2022, including twice yearly screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC-6), new HCC, surveillance for or treatment of esophageal varices, variceal bleeding, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality. Joinpoint analyses were used to assess the changes in trends over time. Logistic regression models were used to identify the demographic and medical factors associated with each outcome over time. Among 111,558 Veterans with cirrhosis with a mean Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium of 11±5, rates of HCC-6 sharply declined from a prepandemic peak of 41%, to a nadir of 28%, and rebounded to 36% by March 2022. All-cause mortality did not significantly change over the pandemic, but new HCC diagnosis, EVST, variceal bleeding, and all-cause hospitalization significantly declined over follow-up. Quarterly HCC diagnosis declined from 0.49% to 0.38%, EVST from 50% to 41%, variceal bleeding from 0.15% to 0.11%, and hospitalization from 9% to 5%. Rurality became newly, significantly associated with nonscreening over the pandemic (aOR for HCC-6=0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.86; aOR for EVST=0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.997).

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic continues to impact cirrhosis care. Identifying populations at the highest risk of care disruptions may help to address ongoing areas of need.

Refining Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy surveys using cognitive interviews with frontline providers

BACKGROUND

The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation includes 73 defined implementation strategies clustered into nine content areas. This taxonomy has been used to track implementation strategies over time using surveys. This study aimed to improve the ERIC survey using cognitive interviews with non-implementation scientist clinicians.

METHODS

Starting in 2015, we developed and fielded annual ERIC surveys to evaluate liver care in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We invited providers who had completed at least three surveys to participate in cognitive interviews (October 2020 to October 2021). Before the interviews, participants reviewed the complete 73-item ERIC survey and marked which strategies were unclear due to wording, conceptual confusion, or overlap with other strategies. They then engaged in semi-structured cognitive interviews to describe the experience of completing the survey and elaborate on which strategies required further clarification.

RESULTS

Twelve VA providers completed surveys followed by cognitive interviews. The "Engage Consumer" and "Support Clinicians" clusters were rated most highly in terms of conceptual and wording clarity. In contrast, the "Financial" cluster had the most wording and conceptual confusion. The "Adapt and Tailor to Context" cluster strategies were considered to have the most redundancy. Providers outlined ways in which the strategies could be clearer in terms of wording (32%), conceptual clarity (51%), and clarifying the distinction between strategies (51%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive interviews with ERIC survey participants allowed us to identify and address issues with strategy wording, combine conceptually indistinct strategies, and disaggregate multi-barreled strategies. Improvements made to the ERIC survey based on these findings will ultimately assist VA and other institutions in designing, evaluating, and replicating quality improvement efforts.

Getting to implementation: Adaptation of an implementation playbook

Introduction

Implementation strategies supporting the translation of evidence into practice need to be tailored and adapted for maximum effectiveness, yet the field of adapting implementation strategies remains nascent. We aimed to adapt "Getting To Outcomes"® (GTO), a 10-step implementation playbook designed to help community-based organizations plan and evaluate behavioral health programs, into "Getting To Implementation" (GTI) to support the selection, tailoring, and use of implementation strategies in health care settings.

Methods

Our embedded evaluation team partnered with operations, external facilitators, and site implementers to employ participatory methods to co-design and adapt GTO for Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient cirrhosis care improvement. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidenced-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) guided documentation and analysis of changes made pre- and post-implementation of GTI at 12 VA medical centers. Data from multiple sources (interviews, observation, content analysis, and fidelity tracking) were triangulated and analyzed using rapid techniques over a 3-year period.

Results

Adaptations during pre-implementation were planned, proactive, and focused on context and content to improve acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the GTI playbook. Modifications during and after implementation were unplanned and reactive, concentrating on adoption, fidelity, and sustainability. All changes were collaboratively developed, fidelity consistent at the level of the facilitator and/or implementer.

Conclusion

GTO was initially adapted to GTI to support health care teams' selection and use of implementation strategies for improving guideline-concordant medical care. GTI required ongoing modification, particularly in steps regarding team building, context assessment, strategy selection, and sustainability due to difficulties with step clarity and progression. This work also highlights the challenges in pragmatic approaches to collecting and synthesizing implementation, fidelity, and adaptation data.

Trial registration

This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04178096).

User experience of a hepatitis c population management dashboard in the Department of Veterans Affairs

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is the largest integrated healthcare organization in the US and cares for the largest cohort of individuals with hepatitis C (HCV). A national HCV population management dashboard enabled rapid identification and treatment uptake with direct acting antiviral agents across VA hospitals. We describe the HCV dashboard (HCVDB) and evaluate its use and user experience.

METHODS

A user-centered design approach created the HCVDB to include reports based on the HCV care continuum: 1) 1945-1965 birth cohort high-risk screening, 2) linkage to care and treatment of chronic HCV, 3) treatment monitoring, 4) post-treatment to confirm cure (i.e., sustained virologic response), and 5) special populations of unstably housed Veterans. We evaluated frequency of usage and user experience with the System Usability Score (SUS) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) instruments.

RESULTS

Between November 2016 and July 2021, 1302 unique users accessed the HCVDB a total of 163,836 times. The linkage report was used most frequently (71%), followed by screening (13%), sustained virologic response (11%), on-treatment (4%), and special populations (<1%). Based on user feedback (n = 105), the mean SUS score was 73±16, indicating a good user experience. Overall acceptability was high with the following UTAUT2 rated from highest to least: Price Value, Performance Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The HCVDB had rapid and widespread uptake, met provider needs, and scored highly on user experience measures. Collaboration between clinicians, clinical informatics, and population health experts was essential for dashboard design and sustained use. Population health management tools have the potential for large-scale impacts on care timeliness and efficiency.

Association between the number of adopted implementation strategies and contextual determinants: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

The successful implementation of evidence-based innovations to improve healthcare delivery often requires a well-planned strategy to support their use. With a greater recognition of the importance of an implementation process, researchers have turned their attention to implementation strategies and their customization to target specific organizational barriers and facilitators. Further, there is a paucity of empirical evidence demonstrating the link between implementation determinants and the number of selected implementation strategies. The purpose of this mixed methods analysis is to examine how formatively assessed barriers and facilitators to implementation relate to the number and type of implementation strategies adopted to address context-specific factors.

METHODS

A mixed methods evaluation that included 15 rheumatology clinics throughout the United States that were planning for implementation of an evidence-based shared decision-making aid for patients with lupus. Quantitative data consisted of a count of the number of implementation strategies used by a clinic. Qualitative data collection was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and relied upon semi-structured interviews with 90 clinic members between November 2018 and August 2019.

RESULTS

Using the CFIR, we found that local clinic factors (Inner Setting Domain) resulted in different perceptions about Planning and Executing the DA (Process Domain); these domains were most likely to distinguish between the number and type of implementation strategies adopted by the clinics. In contrast, Intervention characteristics, Individual Characteristics, and the Outer Setting did not differentiate between the groups with different numbers of implementation strategies. The number and type of chosen strategies were not those associated with the context-specific factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings show that, despite recognition of the value of customizing implementation strategies for the contexts in which they are applied, they are too often chosen in a manner that fail to adequately reflect the diverse settings that may present unique factors associated with implementation. Our findings also highlight the importance of the inner context - both in terms of structural characteristics and existing work processes - as a driving factor for why some organizations select different numbers and types of implementation strategies.

Precision Implementation: An Approach to Mechanism Testing in Implementation Research

Advancing mechanism-focused research in implementation science is a priority given its potential to improve tailoring and efficiency of implementation strategies. Experimental therapeutics, or experimental medicine, offers an approach for mechanism testing that has been promoted by the NIH Science of Behavior Change and endorsed by the National Institute for Mental Health. This approach has been applied across the translational spectrum - with initial applications to biological research and more recent applications to psychosocial treatment development research. We describe further advancement of experimental therapeutics along the translational spectrum and describe how it is ideally suited to inform precision experimental tests of implementation strategy mechanisms, which we term precision implementation. Such an approach to mechanism testing will allow for identification of causal dose-response relationships between implementation strategies, presumed mechanisms, and implementation outcomes. We discuss the tension between the scientific rigor required to conduct mechanism-focused research using experimental therapeutics and the "real world" conditions in which implementation research takes place. We provide a series of example studies that show "beginning to end" application of this framework in research focused on provider implementation of an evidence-based intervention in routine clinical care settings.

Randomized Policy Evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a dashboard Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STROM) to guide clinical practice interventions. VHA released a policy mandating that high-risk patients of an adverse event based on the STORM dashboard are to be reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of clinicians.

AIM

Randomized program evaluation to evaluate if patients in the oversight arm had a lower risk of opioid-related serious adverse events (SAEs) or death compared to those in the non-oversight arm.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

One-hundred and forty VHA facilities (aka medical centers) were randomly assigned to two groups: oversight and non-oversight arms. VHA patients who were prescribed opioids between April 18, 2018, and November 8, 2019, were included in the cohort.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

We hypothesized that patients cared for by VHA facilities that received the policy with the oversight accountability language would achieve lower opioid-related SAEs or death.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

We did not observe a relationship between the oversight arm and opioid-related SAEs or death. Patients in the non-oversight arm had a significantly higher chance of receiving a case review compared to those in the oversight arm.

DISCUSSION

Even though our findings were unexpected, the STORM policy overall was likely successful in focusing the provider's attention on very high-risk patients.

Strategies for de-implementation of low-value care-a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The use of low-value care (LVC) is a persistent problem that calls for knowledge about strategies for de-implementation. However, studies are dispersed across many clinical fields, and there is no overview of strategies that can be used to support the de-implementation of LVC. The extent to which strategies used for implementation are also used in de-implementing LVC is unknown. The aim of this scoping review is to (1) identify strategies for the de-implementation of LVC described in the scientific literature and (2) compare de-implementation strategies to implementation strategies as specified in the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) and strategies added by Perry et al. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted according to recommendations outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. Four scientific databases were searched, relevant articles were snowball searched, and the journal Implementation Science was searched manually for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies of strategies designed to reduce the use of LVC. Two reviewers conducted all abstract and full-text reviews, and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data-charting form. The strategies were first coded inductively and then mapped onto the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies.

RESULTS

The scoping review identified a total of 71 unique de-implementation strategies described in the literature. Of these, 62 strategies could be mapped onto ERIC strategies, and four strategies onto one added category. Half (50%) of the 73 ERIC implementation strategies were used for de-implementation purposes. Five identified de-implementation strategies could not be mapped onto any of the existing strategies in ERIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar strategies are used for de-implementation and implementation. However, only a half of the implementation strategies included in the ERIC compilation were represented in the de-implementation studies, which may imply that some strategies are being underused or that they are not applicable for de-implementation purposes. The strategies assess and redesign workflow (a strategy previously suggested to be added to ERIC), accountability tool, and communication tool (unique new strategies for de-implementation) could complement the existing ERIC compilation when used for de-implementation purposes.

Differences in stakeholder-reported barriers and implementation strategies between counties with high, middle, and low HPV vaccine initiation rates: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

A greater understanding of the county-level differences in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates could aid targeting of interventions to reduce HPV-related cancer disparities.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare the stakeholder-reported barriers and efforts to increase HPV vaccination rates between counties within the highest, middle, and lowest HPV vaccine initiation (receipt of the first dose) rates among 22 northern Florida counties. Between August 2018 and April 2019, we recruited stakeholders (n = 68) through purposeful and snowball sampling to identify potential participants who were most knowledgeable about the HPV vaccination activities within their county and would represent a variety of viewpoints to create a diverse picture of each county, and completed semi-structured interviews. County-level HPV vaccine initiation rates for 2018 were estimated from the Florida Department of Health's immunization registry and population counts. Implementation strategies were categorized by level of importance and feasibility using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. We compared the barriers and implementation strategies for HPV vaccination between tercile groups of counties by HPV vaccine initiation rates: highest (18 stakeholders), middle (27 stakeholders), and lowest (23 stakeholders).

RESULTS

The majority of the 68 stakeholders were female (89.7%), non-Hispanic white (73.5%), and represented a variety of clinical and non-clinical occupations. The mentioned barriers represented five themes: healthcare access, clinician practices, community partnerships, targeted populations, and cultural barriers. Within themes, differences emerged between county terciles. Within healthcare access, the highest rate county stakeholders focused on transportation, lowest rate county stakeholders focused on lack of clinicians, and middle county stakeholders mentioned both. The number of ERIC quadrant I strategies, higher feasibility, and importance described decreased with the tercile for HPV vaccination: highest = 6, middle = 5, and lowest =3 strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The differing barriers and strategies between the highest, middle, and lowest vaccination rate counties suggest that a tailored and targeted effort within the lowest and middle counties to adopt strategies of the highest rate counties may reduce disparities.

Core implementation strategies for improving cirrhosis care in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for more than 80,000 veterans with cirrhosis. This longitudinal, multimethod evaluation of a cirrhosis care quality improvement program aimed to (1) identify implementation strategies associated with evidence-based, guideline-concordant cirrhosis care over time, and (2) use qualitative interviews to operationalize strategies for a manualized intervention.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

VHA providers were surveyed annually about the use of 73 implementation strategies to improve cirrhosis care in fiscal years 2018 (FY18) and 2019 (FY19). Implementation strategies linked to guideline-concordant cirrhosis care were identified using bivariate statistics and comparative configurational methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 facilities in the highest quartile of cirrhosis care to specify the successful implementation strategies and their mechanisms of change. A total of 106 VHA facilities (82%) responded at least once over the 2-year period (FY18, n = 63; FY19, n = 100). Facilities reported using a median of 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 20) implementation strategies in FY18 and 10 (IQR 19) in FY19. Of the 73 strategies, 35 (48%) were positively correlated with provision of evidence-based cirrhosis care. Configurational analysis identified multiple strategy pathways directly linked to more guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. Across both methods, a subset of eight strategies was determined to be core to cirrhosis care improvement and specified using qualitative interviews.

CONCLUSIONS

In a national cirrhosis care improvement initiative, a multimethod approach identified a core subset of successful implementation strategy combinations. This process of empirically identifying and specifying implementation strategies may be applicable to other implementation challenges in hepatology.

The Science Behind Safe School Re-opening: Leveraging the Pillars of Infection Control to Support Safe Elementary and Secondary Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic

There are limited tools for adapting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection control plans to school settings. We present an infection prevention model for optimizing safe re-opening for elementary and secondary schools during the global COVID-19 pandemic and review the current evidence behind various infection prevention interventions in school settings. The model is adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fundamental pillars for infection prevention and includes 4 categories of intervention: epidemiologic controls (town prevalence metrics, diagnostic testing, quarantine strategies), administrative controls (state vaccination policies, alternative school models, symptom screens, quarantine breaks), engineering/environmental controls (distancing, outdoor space, ventilation), and personal protective equipment (PPE)/hand hygiene (face coverings, hand sanitizing). The adapted infection control pillars model utilizes implementation science-informed considerations to maximize pragmatism and adherence by leveraging evidence-based strategies. It highlights the necessity of redundant infection prevention interventions, acknowledges the importance of community buy-in to achieve real-world effectiveness, and addresses tactics to overcome implementation barriers. Recommendations are grounded in the Dynamic Sustainability Framework and include suggestions to maintain infection prevention effectiveness over time to ensure ongoing safety.

Promoting de-implementation of inappropriate antimicrobial use in cardiac device procedures by expanding audit and feedback: protocol for hybrid III type effectiveness/implementation quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Despite a strong evidence base and clinical guidelines specifically recommending against prolonged post-procedural antimicrobial use, studies indicate that the practice is common following cardiac device procedures. Formative evaluations conducted by the study team suggest that inappropriate antimicrobial use may be driven by information silos that drive provider belief that antimicrobials are not harmful, in part due to lack of complete feedback about all types of clinical outcomes. De-implementation is recognized as an important area of research that can lead to reductions in unnecessary, wasteful, or harmful practices, such as excess antimicrobial use following cardiac device procedures; however, investigations into strategies that lead to successful de-implementation are limited. The overarching hypothesis to be tested in this trial is that a bundle of implementation strategies that includes audit and feedback about direct patient harms caused by inappropriate prescribing can lead to successful de-implementation of guideline-discordant care.

METHODS

We propose a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge intervention trial at three high-volume, high-complexity VA medical centers. The main study intervention (an informatics-based, real-time audit-and-feedback tool) was developed based on learning/unlearning theory and formative evaluations and guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) Framework. Elements of the bundled and multifaceted implementation strategy to promote appropriate prescribing will include audit-and-feedback reports that include information about antibiotic harms, stakeholder engagement, patient and provider education, identification of local champions, and blended facilitation. The primary study outcome is adoption of evidence-based practice (de-implementation of inappropriate antimicrobial use). Clinical outcomes (cardiac device infections, acute kidney injuries and Clostridioides difficile infections) are secondary. Qualitative interviews will assess relevant implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, fidelity, feasibility).

DISCUSSION

De-implementation theory suggests that factors that may have a particularly strong influence on de-implementation include strength of the underlying evidence, the complexity of the intervention, and patient and provider anxiety and fear about changing an established practice. This study will assess whether a multifaceted intervention mapped to identified de-implementation barriers leads to measurable improvements in provision of guideline-concordant antimicrobial use. Findings will improve understanding about factors that impact successful or unsuccessful de-implementation of harmful or wasteful healthcare practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05020418.

Mapping the road to elimination: a 5-year evaluation of implementation strategies associated with hepatitis C treatment in the veterans health administration

BACKGROUND

While few countries and healthcare systems are on track to meet the World Health Organization's hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination goals, the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a leader in these efforts. We aimed to determine which implementation strategies were associated with successful national viral elimination implementation within the VHA.

METHODS

We conducted a five-year, longitudinal cohort study of the VHA Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative between October 2015 and September 2019. Participants from 130 VHA medical centers treating HCV were sent annual electronic surveys about their use of 73 implementation strategies, organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Descriptive and nonparametric analyses assessed strategy use over time, strategy attribution to the HIT, and strategy associations with site HCV treatment volume and rate of adoption, following the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations.

RESULTS

Between 58 and 109 medical centers provided responses in each year, including 127 (98%) responding at least once, and 54 (42%) responding in all four implementation years. A median of 13-27 strategies were endorsed per year, and 8-36 individual strategies were significantly associated with treatment volume per year. Data warehousing, tailoring, and patient-facing strategies were most commonly endorsed. One strategy-"identify early adopters to learn from their experiences"-was significantly associated with HCV treatment volume in each year. Peak implementation year was associated with revising professional roles, providing local technical assistance, using data warehousing (i.e., dashboard population management), and identifying and preparing champions. Many of the strategies were driven by a national learning collaborative, which was instrumental in successful HCV elimination.

CONCLUSIONS

VHA's tremendous success in rapidly treating nearly all Veterans with HCV can provide a roadmap for other HCV elimination initiatives.

Establishing a perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery service for general surgical patients at a district general hospital

INTRODUCTION

There is growing recognition of the need for perioperative medicine services for older surgical patients. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and optimisation methodology has been successfully used to improve perioperative outcomes at tertiary centres. This paper describes translation of an established model of geriatrician-led perioperative care to a district general hospital (DGH) setting.

METHODS

A mixed methods quality improvement programme was used and included stakeholder co-design, identification of core components, definition of mechanisms for change, and measurement of impact through qualitative and quantitative approaches.

RESULTS

Within 18 months, a substantive perioperative service for older people was established at a DGH, funded by the surgical directorate. Key outcomes included reduction in length of stay and 30-day readmission and positive staff and patient experience.

DISCUSSION

This study is in keeping with improvement science literature demonstrating the importance of a mixed-methods approach in translating an evidenced-based intervention into another setting, maintaining fidelity and replicating results.

Specifying and Reporting Implementation Strategies Used in a School-Based Prevention Efficacy Trial

Background

Implementation strategies used to enhance the implementation of interventions during efficacy and effectiveness studies are rarely reported. Tracking and reporting implementation strategies during these phases has potential to improve future research studies and real-world implementation. We present an exemplar of how this might be executed by specifying and reporting the implementation strategies that were used during a school-based efficacy trial, Project POWER, which tested a trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff facilitators in 29 schools.

Methods

Following the conclusion of the 4-year trial, core Project POWER research team members identified the implementation strategies that supported intervention delivery during the trial using an established taxonomy of school-based implementation strategies. The actors, actions, action targets, temporality, dose, and implementation outcomes were specified using established implementation strategies reporting guidelines.

Results

The research team identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the Project POWER trial. Most strategies fell within the categories of Train and Educate Stakeholders, Use Evaluative and Iterative Strategies, and Develop Stakeholder Interrelationships. Actors included members of the research team and partner schools. Strategies were used multiple times during the preparation and implementation phases. Action targets were most often characteristics of individuals, implementation process, and characteristics of the inner setting. Strategies predominantly targeted the implementation outcomes of fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and adoption.

Conclusions

This study provided evidence that implementation strategies are used and can be identified in efficacy research using a retrospective approach. Identifying and specifying implementation strategies used during the initial phases of the translational research pipeline can inform the implementation strategies that are carried forward, adapted, or discontinued in future trials and routine practice to improve implementation and effectiveness outcomes.

Implementation strategies in the context of medication reconciliation: a qualitative study

Background

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is an important patient safety initiative that aims to prevent patient harm from medication errors. Yet, the implementation and sustainability of MedRec interventions have been challenging due to contextual barriers like the lack of interprofessional communication (among pharmacists, nurses, and providers) and limited organizational capacity. How to best implement MedRec interventions remains unclear. Guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, we report the differing strategies hospital implementation teams used to implement an evidence-based MedRec Toolkit (the MARQUIS Toolkit).

Methods

A qualitative study was conducted with implementation teams and executive leaders of hospitals participating in the federally funded “Implementation of a Medication Reconciliation Toolkit to Improve Patient Safety” (known as MARQUIS2) research study. Data consisted of transcripts from web-based focus groups and individual interviews, as well as meeting minutes. Interview data were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison technique.

Results

Data were collected from 16 hospitals using 2 focus groups, 3 group interviews, and 11 individual interviews, 10 sites’ meeting minutes, and an email interview of an executive. Major categories of implementation strategies predominantly mirrored the ERIC strategies of “Plan,” “Educate,” “Restructure,” and “Quality Management.” Participants rarely used the ERIC strategies of finance and attending to policy context. Two new non-ERIC categories of strategies emerged—“Integration” and “Professional roles and responsibilities.” Of the 73 specific strategies in the ERIC taxonomy, 32 were used to implement the MARQUIS Toolkit and 11 new, and non-ERIC strategies were identified (e.g., aligning with existing initiatives and professional roles and responsibilities).

Conclusions

Complex interventions like the MARQUIS MedRec Toolkit can benefit from the ERIC taxonomy, but adaptations and new strategies (and even categories) are necessary to fully capture the range of approaches to implementation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00162-5.

Strategies to Improve Delivery of Cirrhosis Care

Purpose of review

This review provides an overview of the current state of research around improving healthcare delivery for patients with cirrhosis in the outpatient, inpatient, and transitional care settings.

Recent findings

Recent studies have broadly employed changes to the model of care delivery, team composition, and technology to improve cirrhosis care. In the outpatient setting, approaches have included engaging caregivers, patient navigators, and non-physicians and using virtual care, smartphone applications, and wearables. Inpatient care approaches have focused on the role of interdisciplinary teams, education interventions, and changes to the medical record system, while post-discharge interventions have included day hospitals and care coordinator interventions. This review also describes the Veterans Health Administration's novel, population-level approach to delivery of cirrhosis care, and addressed how the pandemic has impacted the delivery of cirrhosis care.

Summary

Comprehensive, evidence-based approaches to delivering high-quality cirrhosis care continue to evolve to meet the needs of a growing population in an ever-changing healthcare environment.

The Hepatic Innovation Team Collaborative: A Successful Population-Based Approach to Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance

Simple Summary

Liver cancer is a growing problem that largely impacts people with cirrhosis. This article describes the Veterans Health Administration’s national cirrhosis quality improvement program and its focus on early detection of liver cancer.

Abstract

After implementing a successful hepatitis C elimination program, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative pivoted to focus on improving cirrhosis care. This national program developed teams of providers across the country and engaged them in using systems redesign methods and population health approaches to improve care. The HIT Collaborative developed an Advanced Liver Disease (ALD) Dashboard to identify Veterans with cirrhosis who were due for surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and other liver care, promoted the use of an HCC Clinical Reminder in the electronic health record, and provided training and networking opportunities. This evaluation aimed to describe the VHA’s approach to improving cirrhosis care and identify the facility factors and HIT activities associated with HCC surveillance rates, using a quasi-experimental design. Across all VHA facilities, as the HIT focused on cirrhosis between 2018–2019, HCC surveillance rates increased from 46% (IQR 37–53%) to 51% (IQR 42–60%, p < 0.001). The median HCC surveillance rate was 57% in facilities with high ALD Dashboard utilization compared with 45% in facilities with lower utilization (p < 0.001) and 58% in facilities using the HCC Clinical Reminder compared with 47% in facilities not using this tool (p < 0.001) in FY19. Increased use of the ALD Dashboard and adoption of the HCC Clinical Reminder were independently, significantly associated with HCC surveillance rates in multivariate models, controlling for other facility characteristics. In conclusion, the VHA’s HIT Collaborative is a national healthcare initiative associated with significant improvement in HCC surveillance rates.

Implementing the PREP2 Algorithm to Predict Upper Limb Recovery Potential After Stroke in Clinical Practice: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Predicting motor recovery after stroke is a key factor when planning and providing rehabilitation for individual patients. The Predict REcovery Potential (PREP2) prediction tool was developed to help clinicians predict upper limb functional outcome. In parallel to further model validation, the purpose of this study was to explore how PREP2 was implemented in clinical practice within the Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) in New Zealand.

METHODS

In this case study design using semi-structured interviews, 19 interviews were conducted with clinicians involved in stroke care at ADHB. To explore factors influencing implementation, interview content was coded and analyzed using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Strategies identified by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Project were used to describe how implementation was undertaken.

RESULTS

Implementation of PREP2 was initiated and driven by therapists. Key factors driving implementation were as follows: the support given to staff from the implementation team; the knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy of staff; and the perceived benefits of having PREP2 prediction information. Twenty-six Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies were identified relating to 3 areas: implementation team, clinical/academic partnerships, and training.

CONCLUSIONS

The PREP2 prediction tool was successfully implemented in clinical practice at ADHB. Barriers and facilitators to implementation success were identified, and implementation strategies were described. Lessons learned can aid future development and implementation of prediction models in clinical practice.

IMPACT

Translating evidence-based interventions into clinical practice can be challenging and slow; however, shortly after its local validation, PREP2 was successfully implemented into clinical practice at the same site in New Zealand. In parallel to further model validation, organizations and practices can glean useful lessons to aid future implementation.

Innovations in Hepatitis C Screening and Treatment

New therapies offer hope for a cure to millions of persons living with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. HCV elimination is a global goal that will be difficult to achieve using the traditional paradigms of diagnosis and care. The current standard has evolved toward universal HCV screening and treatment, to achieve elimination goals. There are several steps between HCV diagnosis and cure with major barriers along the way. Innovative models of care can address barriers to better serve hardly reached populations and scale national efforts in the United States and abroad. Herein, we highlight innovative models of HCV care that aid in our progress toward HCV elimination.

From Research Training to Scientific Advancement-Contributions from the Implementation Research Institute: An Introduction to the Special Issue

The special series is designed to provide examples of funded implementation research conducted by alumni of the first four cohorts of the Implementation Research Institute (IRI). The introduction links the six substantive papers to the conceptual and methodological challenges laid out in a 2009 publication in this journal which led to the IRI training program in the emerging science of implementation with a special focus on behavior health settings. The 7th paper in the series illustrates an innovative evaluative approach to design and measurement of IRI fellow publications and grants informed by the training program such as bibliometrics. The introduction also notes some elements identified in the 2009 foundational paper not represented in these papers such as costs as well as important developments and foci in the decade since 2009 such as de-implementation, sustainability, dynamic adaptation processes, and hybrid designs that need to be an integral part of training programs in implementation research.

Consensus on strategies for implementing high priority mental health care practices within the US Department of Veterans Affairs

Background

Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies remains a significant challenge. At present, there is a gap between the number of strategies prospectively included in implementation trials, typically four or fewer, and the number of strategies utilized retrospectively, often 20 or more. This gap points to the need for developing a better understanding of the range of implementation strategies that should be considered in implementation science and practice.

Methods

This study elicited expert recommendations to identify which of 73 discrete implementation strategies were considered essential for implementing three mental health care high priority practices (HPPs) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs: depression outcome monitoring in primary care mental health (n = 20), prolonged exposure therapy for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 22), and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications (n = 20). Participants had expertise in implementation science, the specific HPP, or both. A highly structured recommendation process was used to obtain recommendations for each HPP.

Results

Majority consensus was identified for 26 or more strategies as absolutely essential; 53 or more strategies were identified as either likely essential or absolutely essential across the three HPPs.

Conclusions

The large number of strategies identified as essential starkly contrasts with existing research that largely focuses on application of single strategies to support implementation. Systematic investigation and documentation of multi-strategy implementation initiatives is needed.

Plain Language Summary

Most implementation studies focus on the impact of a relatively small number of discrete implementation strategies on the uptake of a practice. However, studies that systematically survey providers find that dozens or more discrete implementation strategies can be identified in the context of the implementation initiative. This study engaged experts in implementation science and clinical practice in a structured recommendation process to identify which of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies were considered absolutely essential, likely essential, likely inessential, and absolutely inessential for each of the three distinct mental health care practices: depression outcome monitoring in primary care, prolonged exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder, and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications. The results highlight that experts consider a large number of strategies as absolutely or likely essential for supporting the implementation of mental health care practices. For example, 26 strategies were identified as absolutely essential for all three mental health care practices. Another 27 strategies were identified as either absolutely or likely essential across all three practices. This study points to the need for future studies to document the decision-making process an initiative undergoes to identify which strategies to include and exclude in an implementation effort. In particular, a structured approach to this documentation may be necessary to identify strategies that may be endogenous to a care setting and that may not be otherwise be identified as being "deliberately" used to support a practice or intervention.

Integrating implementation science in clinical research to maximize public health impact: a call for the reporting and alignment of implementation strategy use with implementation outcomes in clinical research

BACKGROUND

Although comprehensive reporting guidelines for implementation strategy use within implementation research exist, they are rarely used by clinical (i.e., efficacy and effectiveness) researchers. In this debate, we argue that the lack of comprehensive reporting of implementation strategy use and alignment of those strategies with implementation outcomes within clinical research is a missed opportunity to efficiently narrow research-to-practice gaps.

MAIN BODY

We review ways that comprehensively specifying implementation strategy use can advance science, including enhancing replicability of clinical trials and reducing the time from clinical research to public health impact. We then propose that revisions to frequently used reporting guidelines in clinical research (e.g., CONSORT, TIDieR) are needed, review current methods for reporting implementation strategy use (e.g., utilizing StaRI), provide pragmatic suggestions on how to both prospectively and retrospectively specify implementation strategy use and align these strategies with implementation outcomes within clinical research, and offer a case study of using these methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The approaches recommended in this article will not only contribute to shared knowledge and language among clinical and implementation researchers but also facilitate the replication of efficacy and effectiveness research. Ultimately, we hope to accelerate translation from clinical to implementation research in order to expedite improvements in public health.

Evaluating implementation strategies for essential newborn care interventions in low- and low middle-income countries: a systematic review

Neonatal mortality remains a significant health problem in low-income settings. Low-cost essential newborn care (ENC) interventions with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness exist but have not reached high coverage (≥90%). Little is known about the strategies used to implement these interventions or how they relate to improved coverage. We conducted a systematic review of implementation strategies and implementation outcomes for ENC in low- and low middle-income countries capturing evidence from five medical and global health databases from 1990 to 2018. We included studies of implementation of delayed cord clamping, immediate drying, skin-to-skin contact (SSC) and/or early initiation of breastfeeding implemented in the first hour (facility-based studies) or the 1st day (community-based studies) of life. Implementation strategies and outcomes were categorized according to published frameworks: Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change and Outcomes for Implementation Research. The relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes was evaluated using standardized mean differences and correlation coefficients. Forty-three papers met inclusion criteria. Interventions included community-based care/health promotion and facility-based support and health care provider training. Included studies used 3-31 implementation strategies, though the consistency with which strategies were applied was variable. Conduct educational meetings was the most frequently used strategy. Included studies reported 1-4 implementation outcomes with coverage reported most frequently. Heterogeneity was high and no statistically significant association was found between the number of implementation strategies used and coverage of ENC. This review highlights several challenges in learning from implementation of ENC in low- and low middle-income countries, particularly poor description of interventions and implementation outcomes. We recommend use of UK Medical Research Council guidelines (2015) for process evaluations and checklists for reporting implementation studies. Improved reporting of implementation research in this setting is necessary to learn how to improve service delivery and outcomes and thereby reduce neonatal mortality.

Getting to implementation: a protocol for a Hybrid III stepped wedge cluster randomized evaluation of using data-driven implementation strategies to improve cirrhosis care for Veterans

BACKGROUND

Cirrhosis is a rapidly increasing cause of global mortality. To improve cirrhosis care, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative to support VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) to deliver evidence-based cirrhosis care. This randomized HIT program evaluation aims to develop and assess a novel approach for choosing and applying implementation strategies to improve the quality of cirrhosis care.

METHODS

Evaluation aims are to (1) empirically determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for Veterans with cirrhosis, (2) manualize these "data-driven" implementation strategies, and (3) assess the effectiveness of data-driven implementation strategies in increasing cirrhosis EBP uptake. Aim 1 will include an online survey of all VAMCs' use of 73 implementations strategies to improve cirrhosis care, as defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Traditional statistical as well as configurational comparative methods will both be employed to determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with site-level adherence to EBPs for cirrhosis. In aim 2, semi-structured interviews with high-performing VAMCs will be conducted to operationalize successful implementation strategies for cirrhosis care. These data will be used to inform the creation of a step-by-step guide to tailoring and applying the implementation strategies identified in aim 1. In aim 3, this manualized implementation intervention will be assessed using a hybrid type III stepped-wedge cluster randomized design. This evaluation will be conducted in 12 VAMCs, with four VAMCs crossing from control to intervention every 6 months, in order to assess the effectiveness of using data-driven implementation strategies to improve guideline-concordant cirrhosis care.

DISCUSSION

Successful completion of this innovative evaluation will establish the feasibility of using early evaluation data to inform a manualized, user-friendly implementation intervention for VAMCs with opportunities to improve care. This evaluation will provide implementation support tools that can be applied to enhance the implementation of other evidence-based practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04178096 ) on 4/29/20.

Using Implementation Mapping to Develop Implementation Strategies for the Delivery of a Cancer Prevention and Control Phone Navigation Program: A Collaboration With 2-1-1

Cancer prevention and control (CPC) behaviors, such as cancer screening, human papillomavirus vaccination, and smoking cessation, are critical public health issues. Evidence-based interventions have been identified to improve the uptake of CPC behaviors; however, they are often inconsistently implemented, affecting their reach and effectiveness. Patient navigation is an evidence-based approach to increasing CPC behaviors. Nevertheless, there are few navigation programs that use systematically developed implementation strategies to facilitate adoption, implementation, and maintenance, which affects uptake and outcomes. This article describes the development of a multifaceted implementation strategy designed to facilitate delivery of a CPC phone navigation program to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening; human papillomavirus vaccination; and smoking cessation among 2-1-1 Texas helpline callers. Using implementation mapping, a systematic approach for developing implementation strategies, we designed a strategy that involved training 2-1-1 information specialists to deliver the program, developed online tracking and quality-monitoring (audit and feedback) systems, and developed and distributed protocols and other materials to support training and implementation. Through this iterative process and our collaboration with 2-1-1 Texas call centers, our project resulted in a comprehensive training program with a robust curriculum of pertinent program content, for which we identified core components and appropriate delivery modes that are culturally relevant to the population. The results of this study can be applied to the development of more systematic, transparent, and replicable processes for designing implementation strategies. The study also demonstrates a process that can be applied to other contexts and other CPC program implementation efforts.

Making change happen in criminal justice settings: leveraging implementation science to improve mental health care

BACKGROUND

It is a constitutional right to receive health care, including mental health care, while incarcerated. Yet, even basic evidence-based mental health care practices have not been routinely integrated into criminal justice (CJ) settings. Strategies from implementation science, or the study of methods for integrating evidence-based practices into routine care, can accelerate uptake of established interventions within low-resource, high-need settings such as prisons and jails. However, most studies of mental health practices in CJ settings do not use implementation frameworks to guide efforts to integrate treatments, systematically select or report implementation strategies, or evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

After introducing implementation science and articulating the rationale for its application within CJ settings, we provide two illustrative case examples of efforts to integrate mental health interventions within CJ settings. Each case example demonstrates how an implementation framework either was applied or could have been applied to promote intervention adoption. The first focuses on poor implementation of a mental health screener in a county jail, retrospectively highlighting how use of a determinants framework (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR]) could help staff identify factors that led to the implementation failure. The second describes an investigator-initiated research study that used a process framework (the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment [EPIS] framework) to systematically investigate and document the factors that led to successful implementation of a psychotherapy group for survivors of sexual violence in a women's community corrections center. Both are presented in accessible language, as our goal is that this article can be used as a primer for justice health researchers, community partners, and correctional leadership who are unfamiliar with implementation science.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific research on the application of implementation science to justice settings is growing, but lags behind the work done in health systems. Given the tremendous need for mental and behavioral health intervention across the full spectrum of justice settings, information on how to successfully implement evidence-based intervention and prevention efforts is sorely needed but possible to obtain with greater integration of knowledge from implementation science.

Precision community: a mixed methods study to identify determinants of adoption and implementation of targeted cancer therapy in community oncology

Background

Precision medicine has enormous potential to improve cancer outcomes. Over one third of the 1.5 million Americans diagnosed with cancer each year have genetic mutations that could be targeted with an FDA-approved drug to treat their disease more effectively. However, the current uptake of targeted cancer therapy in clinical practice is suboptimal. Tumor testing is not widely used, and treatments based on molecular and genomic profiling are often not prescribed when indicated. Challenges with the uptake of precision medicine may disproportionately impact cancer patients in rural communities and other underserved populations. The objective of this study is to identify the determinants of adoption and implementation of precision cancer therapy to design an implementation strategy for community oncology practices, including those in rural areas.

Methods

This study is an explanatory sequential mixed methods study to identify factors associated with the use of targeted cancer therapy. Levels of targeted therapy use will be ascertained by secondary analysis of medical records to identify concordance with 18 national guideline recommendations for use of precision medicine in the treatment of breast, colorectal, lung, and melanoma skin cancer. Concurrently, facilitators and barriers associated with the use of precision cancer therapy will be elicited from interviews with up to a total of 40 oncologists, administrators, pathology, and pharmacy staff across the participating sites. Qualitative analysis will be a template analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Quantitative data aggregated at the practice level will be used to rank oncology practices’ adherence to targeted cancer therapy guidelines. Determinants will be compared among high and low users to isolate factors likely to facilitate targeted therapy use. The study will be conducted in eight community oncology practices, with an estimated 4121 targeted therapy treatment decision-making opportunities over a 3-year period.

Discussion

Despite unprecedented investment in precision medicine, translation into practice is suboptimal. Our study will identify factors associated with the uptake of precision medicine in community settings. These findings will inform future interventions to increase equitable uptake of evidence-based targeted cancer treatment.

Tracking implementation strategies in the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs national opioid risk management initiative

BACKGROUND

In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete "case reviews" for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates.

METHODS

Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility's use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews.

RESULTS

Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111. The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

Tracking implementation strategies in the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs national opioid risk management initiative

BACKGROUND

In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete "case reviews" for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates.

METHODS

Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility's use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews.

RESULTS

Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111. The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

Assessing the Veterans Health Administration's response to intimate partner violence among women: protocol for a randomized hybrid type 2 implementation-effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in the United States (US) remains a complex public health crisis. Women who experience IPV are among the most vulnerable patients seen in primary care. Screening increases the detection of IPV and, when paired with appropriate response interventions, can mitigate the health effects of IPV. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has encouraged evidence-based IPV screening programs since 2014, yet adoption is modest and questions remain regarding the optimal ways to implement these practices, which are not yet available within the majority of VA primary care clinics.

METHODS/DESIGN

This paper describes the planned evaluation of VA's nationwide implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care clinics through a randomized implementation-effectiveness hybrid type 2 trial. With the support of our VA operational partners, we propose a stepped wedge design to compare the impact of two implementation strategies of differing intensities (toolkit + implementation as usual vs. toolkit + implementation facilitation) and investigate the clinical effectiveness of IPV screening programs. Using balanced randomization, 16-20 VA Medical Centers will be assigned to receive implementation facilitation in one of three waves, with implementation support lasting 6 months. Implementation facilitation in this effort consists of the coordinated efforts of the two types of facilitators, external and internal. Implementation facilitation is compared to dissemination of a toolkit plus implementation as usual. We propose a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (clinical records data) and qualitative (key informant interviews) implementation outcomes, as well as quantitative (clinical records data) clinical effectiveness outcomes. We will supplement these data collection methods with provider surveys to assess discrete implementation strategies used before, during, and following implementation facilitation. The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will guide the qualitative data collection and analysis. Summative data will be analyzed using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

DISCUSSION

This research will advance national VHA efforts by identifying the practices and strategies useful for enhancing the implementation of IPV screening programs, thereby ultimately improving services for and health of women seen in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04106193. Registered on 23 September 2019.

Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Implementation Roadmap: Toward Sustainability of Evidence-based Practices in a Learning Health System

BACKGROUND

Learning Health Systems strive to continuously integrate innovations and evidence-based practices (EBPs) into routine care settings. Few models provide a specified pathway to accelerate adoption and spread of EBPs across diverse settings.

OBJECTIVE

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) Implementation Roadmap facilitates uptake of EBPs in routine practice by aligning research and health system priorities.

METHODS

The Roadmap is based on earlier iterations of the QUERI translational research pipeline, incorporating recent advancements in quality improvement and implementation science. Progressive, dynamic phases were operationalized to form an implementation process that promoted a participatory approach which enables stakeholders (health care consumers, clinicians, administrators, and leaders) to systematically plan, deploy, evaluate, and sustain EBPs using implementation strategies within a Learning Health System framework.

RESULTS

The Roadmap consists of Preimplementation, Implementation, and Sustainment phases. Preimplementation identifies a high-priority need, selects EBPs to address the need, engages stakeholders to build implementation capacity, specifies needed EBP adaptions and evaluation goals, and activates leadership support. During Implementation, clinical and research leaders use implementation strategies to promote EBP technical competency and adaptive skills to motivate providers to own and sustain EBPs. Sustainment includes evaluation analyses that establish the EBP business case, and hand-off to system leadership to own EBP implementation maintenance over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The QUERI Implementation Roadmap systematically guides identification, implementation, and sustainment of EBPs, demystifying implementation science for stakeholders in a Learning Health System to ensure that EBPs are more rapidly implemented into practice to improve overall consumer health.

Strategy Configurations Directly Linked to Higher Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Starts: An Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods

BACKGROUND

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares for more patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) than any other US health care system. We tracked the implementation strategies that VA sites used to implement highly effective new treatments for HCV with the aim of uncovering how combinations of implementation strategies influenced the uptake of the HCV treatment innovation. We applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to uncover causal dependencies and identify difference-making strategy configurations, and to distinguish higher from lower HCV treating sites.

METHODS

We surveyed providers to assess VA sites' use of 73 implementation strategies to promote HCV treatment in the fiscal year 2015. CCMs were used to identify strategy configurations that uniquely distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites.

RESULTS

From the 73 possible implementation strategies, CCMs identified 5 distinct strategy configurations, or "solution paths." These were comprised of 10 individual strategies that collectively explained 80% of the sites with higher HCV treatment starts with 100% consistency. Using any one of the following 5 solution paths was sufficient to produce higher treatment starts: (1) technical assistance; (2) engaging in a learning collaborative AND designating leaders; (3) site visits AND outreach to patients to promote uptake and adherence; (4) developing resource sharing agreements AND an implementation blueprint; OR (5) creating new clinical teams AND sharing quality improvement knowledge with other sites AND engaging patients. There was equifinality in that the presence of any one of the 5 solution paths was sufficient for higher treatment starts.

CONCLUSIONS

Five strategy configurations distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites with 100% consistency. CCMs represent a methodological advancement that can help inform high-yield implementation strategy selection and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future implementation efforts.

Advancing Evidence Synthesis from Effectiveness to Implementation: Integration of Implementation Measures into Evidence Reviews

BACKGROUND

In order to close the gap between discoveries that could improve health, and widespread impact on routine health care practice, there is a need for greater attention to the factors that influence dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices. Evidence synthesis projects (e.g., systematic reviews) could contribute to this effort by collecting and synthesizing data relevant to dissemination and implementation. Such an advance would facilitate the spread of high-value, effective, and sustainable interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility of extracting factors related to implementation during evidence synthesis in order to enhance the replicability of successes of studies of interventions in health care settings.

DESIGN

Drawing on the implementation science literature, we suggest 10 established implementation measures that should be considered when conducting evidence synthesis projects. We describe opportunities to assess these constructs in current literature and illustrate these methods through an example of a systematic review.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-nine studies of interventions aimed at improving clinician-patient communication in clinical settings.

KEY RESULTS

We identified acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, intervention complexity, penetration, reach, and sustainability as factors that are feasible and appropriate to extract during an evidence synthesis project.

CONCLUSIONS

To fully understand the potential value of a health care innovation, it is important to consider not only its effectiveness, but also the process, demands, and resource requirements involved in downstream implementation. While there is variation in the degree to which intervention studies currently report implementation factors, there is a growing demand for this information. Abstracting information about these factors may enhance the value of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis efforts, improving the dissemination and adoption of interventions that are effective, feasible, and sustainable across different contexts.

Getting a clinical innovation into practice: An introduction to implementation strategies

Just as there is a robust science that supports development and rigorous testing of clinical innovations, the emerging field of implementation science is developing new theory-based knowledge regarding a growing portfolio of meticulously tested implementation strategies that seek to improve uptake of evidence-based practices by targeting barriers at multiple levels within health care settings. Studying and documenting implementation strategies associated with uptake during the development and trial of a clinical innovation could subsequently position the researcher for a more seamless transition and handoff of the innovation to clinical and operational leaders. The objective of this manuscript is to introduce the concept of implementation strategies: what they are; the rigor with which they are defined and applied to address barriers to clinical innovation adoption; how strategy selection may vary based on contextual, innovation, and recipient factors; how to document the application of strategies over the course of an implementation study; and how testing their effectiveness is the focus of implementation research trials.

Automated Text Messaging With Patients in Department of Veterans Affairs Specialty Clinics: Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Acceptability of mobile phone text messaging as a means of asynchronous communication between health care systems and patients is growing. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has adopted an automated texting system (aTS) for national rollout. The aTS allows providers to develop clinical texting protocols to promote patient self-management and allows clinical teams to monitor patient progress between in-person visits. Texting-supported hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment has not been previously tested.

Objective

Guided by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), we developed an aTS HCV protocol and conducted a mixed methods, hybrid type 2 effectiveness implementation study comparing two programs supporting implementation of the aTS HCV protocol for medication adherence in patients with HCV.

Methods

Seven VA HCV specialty clinics were randomized to usual aTS implementation versus an augmented implementation facilitation program. Implementation process measures included facilitation metrics, usability, and usefulness. Implementation outcomes included provider and patient use of the aTS HCV protocol, and effectiveness outcomes included medication adherence, health perceptions and behaviors, and sustained virologic response (SVR).

Results

Across the seven randomized clinics, there were 293 facilitation events using a core set of nine implementation strategies (157 events in augmented implementation facilitation, 136 events in usual implementation). Providers found the aTS appropriate with high potential for scale-up but not without difficulties in startup, patient selection and recruitment, and clinic workflow integration. Patients largely found the aTS easy to use and helpful; however, low perceived need for self-management support contributed to high declination. Reach and use was modest with 197 patients approached, 71 (36%) enrolled, 50 (25%) authenticated, and 32 (16%) using the aTS. In augmented implementation facilitation clinics, more patients actively used the aTS HCV protocol compared with usual clinic patients (20% vs 12%). Patients who texted reported lower distress about failing HCV treatment (13/15, 87%, vs 8/15, 53%; P=.05) and better adherence to HCV medication (11/15, 73%, reporting excellent adherence vs 6/15, 40%; P=.06), although SVR did not differ by group.

Conclusions

The aTS is a promising intervention for improving patient self-management; however, augmented approaches to implementation may be needed to support clinician buy-in and patient engagement. Considering the behavioral, social, organizational, and technical scale-up challenges that we documented, successful and sustained implementation of the aTS may require implementation strategies that operate at the clinic, provider, and patient levels.

Trial Registration

Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03898349; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03898349

Implementing a Mandated Program Across a Regional Health Care System: A Rapid Qualitative Assessment to Evaluate Early Implementation Strategies

BACKGROUND

Rapid qualitative assessment was used to describe early strategies to implement an evidence-based walking program for hospitalized older adults, assiSTed eaRly mobIlity for hospitalizeD older vEterans (STRIDE), mandated by a regional Department of Veterans Affairs health care system office (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN]).

METHODS

Data were collected from 6 hospital sites via semistructured interviews with key informants, observations of telephone-based technical assistance, and review of VISN-requested program documents (eg, initial implementation plans). An overarching framework of actionable feedback for VISN leadership and specification of locally initiated implementation strategies, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation, was used. Actionable feedback was shared with VISN leadership 1 month after the initiative.

RESULTS

ERIC implementation strategies identified were as follows: (1) promoting adaptability-4 sites had physical therapists/kinesiotherapists instead of assistants walk patients; (2) promoting network weaving-strengthening nursing and PT/KT partnership with regular communication opportunities or a point person was important for implementation; (3) distributing educational materials-2 sites distributed information about STRIDE via e-mail and in person; and (4) organizing clinician implementation team meetings-3 sites used interdisciplinary team meetings to communicate with the clinical staff about STRIDE.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study sheds light on early experiences with implementing STRIDE; the results have been instructive for ongoing implementation and future dissemination of STRIDE, and the approach can be applied across contexts to inform implementation of other programs.

Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions

BACKGROUND

A fundamental challenge of implementation is identifying contextual determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and determining which implementation strategies will address them. Numerous conceptual frameworks (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; CFIR) have been developed to guide the identification of contextual determinants, and compilations of implementation strategies (e.g., the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation; ERIC) have been developed which can support selection and reporting of implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to identify which ERIC implementation strategies would best address specific CFIR-based contextual barriers.

METHODS

Implementation researchers and practitioners were recruited to participate in an online series of tasks involving matching specific ERIC implementation strategies to specific implementation barriers. Participants were presented with brief descriptions of barriers based on CFIR construct definitions. They were asked to rank up to seven implementation strategies that would best address each barrier. Barriers were presented in a random order, and participants had the option to respond to the barrier or skip to another barrier. Participants were also asked about considerations that most influenced their choices.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-five invitations were emailed and 169 (39%) individuals participated. Respondents had considerable heterogeneity in opinions regarding which ERIC strategies best addressed each CFIR barrier. Across the 39 CFIR barriers, an average of 47 different ERIC strategies (SD = 4.8, range 35 to 55) was endorsed at least once for each, as being one of seven strategies that would best address the barrier. A tool was developed that allows users to specify high-priority CFIR-based barriers and receive a prioritized list of strategies based on endorsements provided by participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The wide heterogeneity of endorsements obtained in this study's task suggests that there are relatively few consistent relationships between CFIR-based barriers and ERIC implementation strategies. Despite this heterogeneity, a tool aggregating endorsements across multiple barriers can support taking a structured approach to consider a broad range of strategies given those barriers. This study's results point to the need for a more detailed evaluation of the underlying determinants of barriers and how these determinants are addressed by strategies as part of the implementation planning process.

Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions

BACKGROUND

A fundamental challenge of implementation is identifying contextual determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and determining which implementation strategies will address them. Numerous conceptual frameworks (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; CFIR) have been developed to guide the identification of contextual determinants, and compilations of implementation strategies (e.g., the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation; ERIC) have been developed which can support selection and reporting of implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to identify which ERIC implementation strategies would best address specific CFIR-based contextual barriers.

METHODS

Implementation researchers and practitioners were recruited to participate in an online series of tasks involving matching specific ERIC implementation strategies to specific implementation barriers. Participants were presented with brief descriptions of barriers based on CFIR construct definitions. They were asked to rank up to seven implementation strategies that would best address each barrier. Barriers were presented in a random order, and participants had the option to respond to the barrier or skip to another barrier. Participants were also asked about considerations that most influenced their choices.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-five invitations were emailed and 169 (39%) individuals participated. Respondents had considerable heterogeneity in opinions regarding which ERIC strategies best addressed each CFIR barrier. Across the 39 CFIR barriers, an average of 47 different ERIC strategies (SD = 4.8, range 35 to 55) was endorsed at least once for each, as being one of seven strategies that would best address the barrier. A tool was developed that allows users to specify high-priority CFIR-based barriers and receive a prioritized list of strategies based on endorsements provided by participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The wide heterogeneity of endorsements obtained in this study's task suggests that there are relatively few consistent relationships between CFIR-based barriers and ERIC implementation strategies. Despite this heterogeneity, a tool aggregating endorsements across multiple barriers can support taking a structured approach to consider a broad range of strategies given those barriers. This study's results point to the need for a more detailed evaluation of the underlying determinants of barriers and how these determinants are addressed by strategies as part of the implementation planning process.

Longitudinal assessment of the association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment: Year 2

BACKGROUND

To increase the uptake of evidence-based treatments for hepatitis C (HCV), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Hepatitis Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative. Teams of providers were tasked with choosing implementation strategies to improve HCV care. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess how site-level implementation strategies were associated with HCV treatment initiation and how the use of implementation strategies and their association with HCV treatment changed over time.

METHODS

A key HCV provider at each VA site (N = 130) was asked in two consecutive fiscal years (FYs) to complete an online survey examining the use of 73 implementation strategies organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The number of Veterans initiating treatment for HCV, or "treatment starts," at each site was captured using national data. Providers reported whether the use of each implementation strategy was due to the HIT Collaborative.

RESULTS

Of 130 sites, 80 (62%) responded in Year 1 (FY15) and 105 (81%) responded in Year 2 (FY16). Respondents endorsed a median of 27 (IQR19-38) strategies in Year 2. The strategies significantly more likely to be chosen in Year 2 included tailoring strategies to deliver HCV care, promoting adaptability, sharing knowledge between sites, and using mass media. The total number of treatment starts was significantly positively correlated with total number of strategies endorsed in both years. In Years 1 and 2, respectively, 28 and 26 strategies were significantly associated with treatment starts; 12 strategies overlapped both years, 16 were unique to Year 1, and 14 were unique to Year 2. Strategies significantly associated with treatment starts shifted between Years 1 and 2. Pre-implementation strategies in the "training/educating," "interactive assistance," and "building stakeholder interrelationships" clusters were more likely to be significantly associated with treatment starts in Year 1, while strategies in the "evaluative and iterative" and "adapting and tailoring" clusters were more likely to be associated with treatment starts in Year 2. Approximately half of all strategies were attributed to the HIT Collaborative.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that measuring implementation strategies over time is a useful way to catalog implementation of an evidence-based practice over time and across settings.