Practice facilitation to implement alcohol-related care in Veterans Health Administration liver clinics: a study protocol

Perspectives of clinical stakeholders and patients from four VA liver clinics to tailor practice facilitation for implementing evidence-based alcohol-related care

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is particularly dangerous for people with chronic liver disease. Liver clinics may be an important setting in which to provide effective alcohol-related care by integrating evidence-based strategies, such as brief intervention and medications for alcohol use disorder. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinical stakeholders and patients at liver clinics in four Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers to understand barriers and facilitators of integrating alcohol-related care and to support tailoring of a practice facilitation implementation intervention.

METHODS

Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the CFIR.

RESULTS

We interviewed 46 clinical stakeholders and 41 patient participants and analyzed findings based on the CFIR. Clinical stakeholders described barriers and facilitators that ranged from operations/clinic resource-based (e.g., time and capacity, desire for additional provider types, referral processes) to individual perspective and preference-based (e.g., supportiveness of leadership, individual experiences/beliefs). Patient participants shared barriers and facilitators that ranged from relationship-based (e.g., trusting the provider and feeling judged) to resource and education-based (e.g., connection to a range of treatment options, education about impact of alcohol). Many barriers and facilitators to integrating alcohol-related care in liver clinics were similar to those identified in other clinical settings (e.g., time, resources, role clarity, stigmatizing beliefs). However, some barriers (e.g., fellow-led care and lack of integration of liver clinics with addictions specialists) and facilitators (e.g., presence of quality improvement staff in clinics and integrated pharmacists and behavioral health specialists) were more unique to liver clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the possibility of integrating alcohol-related care into liver clinics but highlight the importance of tailoring efforts to account for variation in provider beliefs and experiences and clinic resources. The barriers and facilitators identified in these interviews were used to tailor a practice facilitation implementation intervention in each clinic setting.

Group physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability and one of the most common conditions treated in outpatient physical therapy (PT). Because of the high and growing prevalence of knee OA, there is a need for efficient approaches for delivering exercise-based PT to patients with knee OA. A prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that a 6-session Group Physical Therapy Program for Knee OA (Group PT) yields equivalent or greater improvements in pain and functional outcomes compared with traditional individual PT, while requiring fewer clinician hours per patient to deliver. This manuscript describes the protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial comparing two implementation packages to support delivery of Group PT.

METHODS

In this 12-month embedded trial, a minimum of 16 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) will be randomized to receive one of two implementation support packages for their Group PT programs: a standard, low-touch support based on Replicating Effective Programs (REP) versus enhanced REP (enREP), which adds tailored, high-touch support if sites do not meet Group PT adoption and sustainment benchmarks at 6 and 9 months following launch. Implementation outcomes, including penetration (primary), adoption, and fidelity, will be assessed at 6 and 12 months (primary assessment time point). Additional analyses will include patient-level effectiveness outcomes (pain, function, satisfaction) and staffing and labor costs. A robust qualitative evaluation of site implementation context and experience, as well as site-led adaptations to the Group PT program, will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the impact of tailored, high-touch implementation support on implementation outcomes when compared to standardized, low-touch support for delivering a PT-based intervention. The Group PT program has strong potential to become a standard offering for PT, improving function and pain-related outcomes for patients with knee OA. Results will provide information regarding the effectiveness and value of this implementation approach and a deeper understanding of how healthcare systems can support wide-scale adoption of Group PT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on March 7, 2022 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT05282927 ).

Strategies to Bridge Equitable Implementation of Telehealth

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid scaling of telehealth limited the extent to which proactive planning for equitable implementation was possible. The deployment of telehealth will persist in the postpandemic era, given patient preferences, advances in technologies, growing acceptance of telehealth, and the potential to overcome barriers to serve populations with limited access to high-quality in-person care. However, aspects and unintended consequences of telehealth may leave some groups underserved or unserved, and corrective implementation plans that address equitable access will be needed. The purposes of this paper are to (1) describe equitable implementation in telehealth and (2) integrate an equity lens into actionable equitable implementation.

Management of Alcohol Use Disorder in Patients With Alcoholic Liver Disease

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a common condition that develops on the background of heavy alcohol use and is characterised by the loss of control over alcohol use and a compulsion to use alcohol, often despite negative consequences. AUD is a leading cause for the resumption of alcohol use in patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) after treatment. Hence it is essential to screen all patients with ALD for the presence of AUD. Screening tools such as alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-C are used, following which the diagnosis and severity of AUD are determined using DSM-5 criteria. The management of AUD in patients with ALD is best carried out using an integrated approach involving psychiatrists and gastroenterologists/hepatologists. The treatment most often involves a combination of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions which try to achieve and maintain abstinence. Although, there is limited evidence, Baclofen is the first line pharmacological agent for long-term management of AUD in patients with ALD. Intensive psychological interventions such as motivation enhancement therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy are also seen to be beneficial. Treatment retention and follow-up are vital and can positively influence outcomes.

Heavy episodic drinking and HIV disclosure by HIV treatment status among People with HIV in IeDEA Cameroon

BACKGROUND

Heavy alcohol use is common among people with HIV (PWH), leading to sub-optimal HIV care outcomes. Yet, heavy episodic drinking (HED) is not routinely addressed within most HIV clinics in sub-Saharan Africa. HIV disclosure may provide social support, potentially reducing HED to cope with HIV. We examined the prevalence of HED and HIV disclosure by antiretroviral treatment (ART) status among PWH receiving HIV care in Cameroon.

METHODS

We analyzed routine HIV clinical data augmented with systematic alcohol use data among adult PWH receiving HIV care in three regional hospitals from January 2016 to March 2020. Recent HED prevalence was examined across PWH by ART status: those not on ART, recent ART initiators (ART initiation ≤30 days prior), and ART users (ART initiation >30 days prior); and by gender. We used log-binomial regression to estimate prevalence differences (PD) between HIV disclosure and recent HED by ART status.

RESULTS

Among 12,517 PWH in care, 16.4% (95%CI: 15.7, 17.0) reported recent HED. HED was reported among 21.2% (95%CI: 16.0, 26.3) of those not on ART, 24.5% (95%CI: 23.1, 26.0) of recent ART initiators, and 12.9% (95%CI: 12.2, 13.6) of ART users. Regardless of ART status, men were more likely than women to report HED. Those who disclosed HIV status had a lower HED prevalence than those who had not disclosed (aPD: -0.07; 95%CI: -0.10, -0.05) and not modified by gender.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of recent HED was high among PWH in care. HED prevalence was highest among men and recent ART initiators. Longitudinal analyses should explore how HIV disclosure may support PWH in reducing or abstaining from HED through social support. Systematic HED screening and referral to care should be included in routine HIV clinical care, particularly for men, to improve engagement in the HIV care continuum in Cameroon.

Does coaching matter? Examining the impact of specific practice facilitation strategies on implementation of quality improvement interventions in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland study

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitation is a multicomponent implementation strategy used to improve the capacity for practices to address care quality and implementation gaps. We sought to assess whether practice facilitators use of coaching strategies aimed at improving self-sufficiency were associated with improved implementation of quality improvement (QI) interventions in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland Study.

METHODS

We mapped 27 practice facilitation activities to a framework that classifies practice facilitation strategies by the degree to which the practice develops its own process expertise (Doing Tasks, Project Management, Consulting, Teaching, and Coaching) and then used regression tree analysis to group practices by facilitation strategies experienced. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess whether practice groups identified by regression tree analysis were associated with successful implementation of QI interventions and practice and study context variables.

RESULTS

There was no association between number of strategies performed by practice facilitators and number of QI interventions implemented. Regression tree analysis identified 4 distinct practice groups based on the number of Project Management and Coaching strategies performed. The median number of interventions increased across the groups. Practices receiving > 4 project management and > 6 coaching activities implemented a median of 17 of 35 interventions. Groups did not differ significantly by practice size, association with a healthcare network, or practice type. Statistically significant differences in practice location, number and duration of facilitator visits, and early study termination emerged among the groups, compared to the overall practice population.

CONCLUSIONS

Practices that engage in more coaching-based strategies with practice facilitators are more likely to implement more QI interventions, and practice receptivity to these strategies was not dependent on basic practice demographics.

Working with HIV clinics to adopt addiction treatment using implementation facilitation (WHAT-IF?): Rationale and design for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study

BACKGROUND

Tobacco, alcohol and opioid misuse are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among people with HIV (PWH). Despite existence of evidence-based counseling and medications for addiction, these treatments are infrequently offered in HIV clinics. The Working with HIV clinics to adopt Addiction Treatment using Implementation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study was conducted to address this implementation challenge. The study's goals were to conduct a formative evaluation of barriers to and facilitators of implementing addiction treatment for PWH followed by an evaluation of the impact of Implementation Facilitation (IF) on promoting adoption of addiction treatments and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The study was conducted at four HIV clinics in the northeast United States, using a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation stepped wedge design and guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Research (PARiHS) framework. A mixed-methods approach was used to identify evidence, context, and facilitation-related barriers to and facilitators of integration of addiction treatments into HIV clinics and to help tailor IF for each clinic. An evaluation was then conducted of the impact of IF on implementation outcomes, including provision of addiction treatment (primary outcome), organizational and clinician and staff readiness to adopt addiction treatment, and changes in organizational models of care used to deliver addiction treatment. The evaluation also included IF's impact on effectiveness outcomes, specifically HIV-related outcomes among patients eligible for addiction treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Results will generate important information regarding the impact of IF as a reproducible strategy to promote addiction treatment in HIV clinics.