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

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.

Differences in adverse outcomes across race and ethnicity among Veterans with similar predicted risks of an overdose or suicide-related event

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the degree to which differences in incidence of mortality and serious adverse events exist across patient race and ethnicity among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions and who have similar predicted risks of adverse outcomes. Patients were assigned scores via the VHA Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), a model used to predict the risk of experiencing overdose- or suicide-related health care events or death. Individuals with the highest STORM risk scores are targeted for case review.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of high-risk veterans who received an outpatient prescription opioid between 4/2018-3/2019.

SETTING

All VHA medical centers.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 84 473 patients whose estimated risk scores were between 0.0420 and 0.0609, the risk scores associated with the top 5%-10% of risk in the STORM development sample.

METHODS

We examined the expected probability of mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs; overdose or suicide-related events) given a patient's risk score and race.

RESULTS

Given a similar risk score, Black patients were less likely than White patients to have a recorded SAE within 6 months of risk score calculation. Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients were less likely than White patients with similar risk scores to die within 6 months of risk score calculation. Some of the mortality differences were driven by age differences in the composition of racial and ethnic groups in our sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that relying on the STORM model to identify patients who may benefit from an interdisciplinary case review may identify patients with clinically meaningful differences in outcome risk across race and ethnicity.

The use of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks in implementation research for medicinal products: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The uptake, adoption and integration of new medicines and treatment regimens within healthcare delivery can take a decade or more. Increasingly, implementation science (IS) research is being used to bridge this gap between the availability of new therapeutic evidence and its actual application in clinical practice. Little is known, however, about the quality of IS research in this area, including the degree to which theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are being used. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the use of TMFs in implementation research involving medicinal products.

METHODS

A search was conducted for English language abstracts and manuscripts describing the application of TMFs in IS studies for medicinal products. Eligible publications were those published between 1 January 1974 and 12 December 2022. All records were screened at the title and abstract stage; included full-text papers were abstracted using data extraction tables designed for the study. Study quality was appraised using the Implementation Research Development Tool.

RESULTS

The initial scoping search identified 2697 publications, of which 9 were ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies were published after 2020 and varied in their objectives, design and therapeutic area. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 50 participants, and all focused on the post-marketing phase of drug development. The TMF most frequently used was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Although most studies applied all TMF domains, TMF use was limited to instrument development and/or qualitative analysis. Quality appraisals indicated the need for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the implementation research, reporting on the cost of implementation strategies, and evaluating the unintended consequences of implementation efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that few IS studies involving medicinal products reported using TMFs. Those that did encompassed a wide variety of therapeutic indications and medicinal products; all were in the post-marketing phase and involved limited application of the TMFs. Researchers should consider conducting IS in earlier phases of drug development and integrating the TMFs throughout the research process. More consistent and in-depth use of TMFs may help advance research in this area.

Development and internal validation of a prediction model for long-term opioid use-an analysis of insurance claims data

ABSTRACT

In the United States, a public-health crisis of opioid overuse has been observed, and in Europe, prescriptions of opioids are strongly increasing over time. The objective was to develop and validate a multivariable prognostic model to be used at the beginning of an opioid prescription episode, aiming to identify individual patients at high risk for long-term opioid use based on routinely collected data. Predictors including demographics, comorbid diseases, comedication, morphine dose at episode initiation, and prescription practice were collected. The primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as opioid use of either >90 days duration and ≥10 claims or >120 days, independent of the number of claims. Traditional generalized linear statistical regression models and machine learning approaches were applied. The area under the curve, calibration plots, and the scaled Brier score assessed model performance. More than four hundred thousand opioid episodes were included. The final risk prediction model had an area under the curve of 0.927 (95% confidence interval 0.924-0.931) in the validation set, and this model had a scaled Brier score of 48.5%. Using a threshold of 10% predicted probability to identify patients at high risk, the overall accuracy of this risk prediction model was 81.6% (95% confidence interval 81.2% to 82.0%). Our study demonstrated that long-term opioid use can be predicted at the initiation of an opioid prescription episode, with satisfactory accuracy using data routinely collected at a large health insurance company. Traditional statistical methods resulted in higher discriminative ability and similarly good calibration as compared with machine learning approaches.

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS): feasibility, usability, and pilot testing of a novel method

BACKGROUND

Systematic approaches are needed to accurately characterize the dynamic use of implementation strategies and how they change over time. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS), a novel methodology to document and characterize implementation strategies use over time.

METHODS

The development and initial evaluation of the LISTS method was conducted within the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium (supported by funding provided through the NCI Cancer MoonshotSM). The IMPACT Consortium includes a coordinating center and three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies testing routine symptom surveillance and integration of symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings. LISTS was created to increase the precision and reliability of dynamic changes in implementation strategy use over time. It includes three components: (1) a strategy assessment, (2) a data capture platform, and (3) a User's Guide. An iterative process between implementation researchers and practitioners was used to develop, pilot test, and refine the LISTS method prior to evaluating its use in three stepped-wedge trials within the IMPACT Consortium. The LISTS method was used with research and practice teams for approximately 12 months and subsequently we evaluated its feasibility, acceptability, and usability using established instruments and novel questions developed specifically for this study.

RESULTS

Initial evaluation of LISTS indicates that it is a feasible and acceptable method, with content validity, for characterizing and tracking the use of implementation strategies over time. Users of LISTS highlighted several opportunities for improving the method for use in future and more diverse implementation studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The LISTS method was developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners to fill a research gap in systematically tracking implementation strategy use and modifications in research studies and other implementation efforts. Preliminary feedback from LISTS users indicate it is feasible and usable. Potential future developments include additional features, fewer data elements, and interoperability with alternative data entry platforms. LISTS offers a systematic method that encourages the use of common data elements to support data analysis across sites and synthesis across studies. Future research is needed to further adapt, refine, and evaluate the LISTS method in studies with employ diverse study designs and address varying delivery settings, health conditions, and intervention types.

Partnering with social service staff to implement pragmatic clinical trials: an interim analysis of implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

With recent growth in the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, the reliance on frontline staff to contribute to trial-related activities has grown as well. Active partnerships with staff members are often critical to pragmatic trial implementation, but rarely do research teams track and evaluate the specific "implementation strategies" used to support staff's involvement in trial procedures (e.g., participant recruitment). Accordingly, we adapted implementation science methodologies and conducted an interim analysis of the strategies deployed with social service staff involved in one multi-site pragmatic clinical trial.

METHODS

We used a naturalistic, observational study design to characterize strategies our research team deployed with staff during monthly, virtual meetings. Data were drawn from meeting notes and recordings from the trial's 4-month Preparation phase and 8-month Implementation phase. Strategies were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and categorized into nine implementation clusters. Survey data were also collected from staff to identify the most useful strategies the research team should deploy when onboarding new staff members in the trial's second year.

RESULTS

A total of 287 strategies were deployed. Strategies in the develop stakeholder interrelationships cluster predominated in both the Preparation (35%) and Implementation (31%) phases, followed by strategies in the use iterative and evaluative approaches cluster, though these were more prevalent during trial Preparation (24%) as compared to trial Implementation (18%). When surveyed on strategy usefulness, strategies in the provide interactive assistance, use financial approaches, and support staff clusters were most useful, per staff responses.

CONCLUSIONS

While strategies to develop stakeholder interrelationships were used most frequently during trial Preparation and Implementation, program staff perceived strategies that provided technical assistance, supported clinicians, and used financial approaches to be most useful and should be deployed when onboarding new staff members. Research teams are encouraged to adapt and apply implementation strategy tracking methods when partnering with social service staff and deploy practical strategies that support pragmatic trial success given staff needs and preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05357261. May 2, 2022.

A call for better validation of opioid overdose risk algorithms

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems powered by predictive models have the potential to improve the accuracy and efficiency of clinical decision-making. However, without sufficient validation, these systems have the potential to mislead clinicians and harm patients. This is especially true for CDS systems used by opioid prescribers and dispensers, where a flawed prediction can directly harm patients. To prevent these harms, regulators and researchers have proposed guidance for validating predictive models and CDS systems. However, this guidance is not universally followed and is not required by law. We call on CDS developers, deployers, and users to hold these systems to higher standards of clinical and technical validation. We provide a case study on two CDS systems deployed on a national scale in the United States for predicting a patient's risk of adverse opioid-related events: the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), used by the Veterans Health Administration, and NarxCare, a commercial system.

Patient-centered quality measurement for opioid use disorder: Development of a taxonomy to address gaps in research and practice

Background: Evidence-based treatment is provided infrequently and inconsistently to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). Treatment guidelines call for high-quality, patient-centered care that meets individual preferences and needs, but it is unclear whether current quality measures address individualized aspects of care and whether measures of patient-centered OUD care are supported by evidence. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of OUD care quality to (1) evaluate patient-centeredness in current OUD quality measures endorsed by national agencies and in national OUD treatment guidelines; and (2) review literature evidence for patient-centered care in OUD diagnosis and management, including gaps in current guidelines, performance data, and quality measures. We then synthesized these findings to develop a new quality measurement taxonomy that incorporates patient-centered aspects of care and identifies priority areas for future research and quality measure development. Results: Across 31 endorsed OUD quality measures, only two measures of patient experience incorporated patient preferences and needs, while national guidelines emphasized providing patient-centered care. Among 689 articles reviewed, evidence varied for practices of patient-centered care. Many practices were supported by guidelines and substantial evidence, while others lacked evidence despite guideline support. Our synthesis of findings resulted in EQuIITable Care, a taxonomy comprised of six classifications: (1) patient Experience and engagement, (2) Quality of life; (3) Identification of patient risks; (4) Interventions to mitigate patient risks; (5) Treatment; and (6) Care coordination and navigation. Conclusions: Current quality measurement for OUD lacks patient-centeredness. EQuIITable Care for OUD provides a roadmap to develop measures of patient-centered care for OUD.

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.

Developing and Implementing Predictive Models in a Learning Healthcare System: Traditional and Artificial Intelligence Approaches in the Veterans Health Administration

Predicting clinical risk is an important part of healthcare and can inform decisions about treatments, preventive interventions, and provision of extra services. The field of predictive models has been revolutionized over the past two decades by electronic health record data; the ability to link such data with other demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic information; the availability of high-capacity computing; and new machine learning and artificial intelligence methods for extracting insights from complex datasets. These advances have produced a new generation of computerized predictive models, but debate continues about their development, reporting, validation, evaluation, and implementation. In this review we reflect on more than 10 years of experience at the Veterans Health Administration, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, in developing, testing, and implementing such models at scale. We report lessons from the implementation of national risk prediction models and suggest an agenda for research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science, Volume 5 is August 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2020

This paper is the forty-third consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2020 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Background

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a policy was implemented requiring VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized in STORM implementation to four arms based on required oversight and by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. To help evaluate this policy intervention, we aimed to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews; (2) assess variation across the four arms; and (3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators.

Method

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. A total of 78 staff from 39 purposefully selected facilities were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were rated using the −2 to + 2 CFIR rating system. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail.

Results

Two important CFIR constructs emerged as barriers to implementation: Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Little time to complete the CASE reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics. Plain Language Summary: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a tool called the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation dashboard. This dashboard shows Veterans at risk for opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy required all VHA facilities to complete case reviews for Veterans who were at high risk for these events. To evaluate this policy implementation, 78 staff from 39 facilities were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) implementation framework was used to create the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into site memos. The site memos were rated using CFIR's −2 to +2 rating system. Ratings did not differ for four study arms related to oversight and timing. Ratings were not associated with facility characteristics. Leadership, engagement and implementation climate were the strongest facilitators for implementation. Lack of time, knowledge, and feedback were important barriers.

Implementing immediate postpartum contraception: a comparative case study at 11 hospitals

Background

Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is an evidence-based practice, but hospitals face significant barriers to its adoption. Our objective was to examine how organizational context (e.g., size, employee attitudes toward the clinical practice) and implementation strategies (i.e., the actions taken to routinize a clinical practice) drive successful implementation of immediate postpartum LARC services, with a goal of informing the design of future implementation interventions.

Methods

We conducted a comparative case study of the implementation of inpatient postpartum contraceptive care at 11 US maternity hospitals. In 2017–2018, we conducted site visits that included semi-structured key informant interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Qualitative measures of implementation success included stakeholder satisfaction, routinization, and sustainability of immediate postpartum LARC services. Qualitative content analysis and cross-case synthesis explored relationships among organizational context, implementation strategies, and implementation success.

Results

We completed semi-structured interviews with 78 clinicians, nurses, residents, pharmacy and revenue cycle staff, and hospital administrators. Successful implementation required three essential conditions: effective implementation champions, an enabling financial environment, and hospital administrator engagement. Six other contextual conditions were influential: trust and effective communication, alignment with stakeholders’ professional values, perception of meeting patients’ needs, robust learning climate, compatibility with workflow, and positive attitudes and adequate knowledge about the clinical practice. On average, sites used 18 (range 11-22) strategies. Strategies to optimize the financial environment and train clinicians and staff were commonly used. Strategies to plan and evaluate implementation and to engage patients emerged as promising to address barriers to practice change, yet were often underused.

Conclusions

Implementation efforts in maternity settings may be more successful if they select strategies to optimize local conditions for success. Our findings elucidate key contextual conditions to target and provide a menu of promising implementation strategies for incorporating recommended contraceptive services into routine maternity practice. Additional prospective research should evaluate whether these strategies effectively optimize local conditions for successful implementation in a variety of settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00136-7.

Early impacts of a multi-faceted implementation strategy to increase use of medication treatments for opioid use disorder in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

Despite the risk of negative sequelae from opioid use disorder (OUD) and clinical guidelines for the use of effective medication treatment for OUD (M-OUD), many Veterans Health Administration (VHA) providers and facilities lag in providing M-OUD. An intensive external facilitation intervention may enhance uptake in low-adopting VHA facilities by engaging stakeholders from multiple clinical settings within a facility (e.g., mental health, primary care, pain specialty clinic, substance use disorder clinics). Our study identified pre-intervention determinants of implementation through qualitative interviews, described strategies employed during the first 6 months of intensive external facilitation, and explored patterns of implementation determinants in relation to early outcomes.

METHODS

Guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, we interviewed stakeholders at low-adopting VHA facilities prior to external facilitation, employed a rapid qualitative analytic process, presented findings during facility visits, and collaboratively created facilitation action plans to achieve goals set by the facilities that would increase M-OUD uptake. The primary outcome was the Substance Use Disorder (SUD)-16, which is a VHA facility-level performance metric consisting of the percent of patients receiving M-OUD among those with an OUD diagnosis. We examined the relationship between pre-implementation factors and 6-month SUD-16 outcomes.

RESULTS

Across eight VHA facilities, we interviewed 68 participants. Implementation determinants included barriers and facilitators across innovation, context, and recipients constructs of i-PARIHS. Each facility selected goals based on the qualitative results. At 6 months, two facilities achieved most goals and two facilities demonstrated progress. The SUD-16 from baseline to 6 months significantly improved in two facilities (8.4% increase (95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.4-12.4) and 9.9% increase (95% CI 3.6-16.2), respectively). Six-month implementation outcomes showed that the extent to which M-OUD aligns with existing clinical practices and values was a primary factor at all facilities, with six of eight facilities perceiving it as both a barrier and facilitator. External health system barriers were most challenging for facilities with the smallest change in SUD-16.

CONCLUSIONS

Early impacts of a multi-faceted implementation approach demonstrated a strong signal for positively impacting M-OUD prescribing in low-adopting VHA facilities. This signal indicates that external facilitation can influence adoption of M-OUD at the facility level in the early implementation phase. These short-term wins experienced by stakeholders may encourage continued adoption and long-term sustainability M-OUD.

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.

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.