1
|
Salvati ZM, Rahm AK, Williams MS, Ladd I, Schlieder V, Atondo J, Schneider JL, Epstein MM, Lu CY, Pawloski PA, Sharaf RN, Liang SY, Burnett-Hartman AN, Hunter JE, Burton-Akright J, Cragun D. A picture is worth a thousand words: advancing the use of visualization tools in implementation science through process mapping and matrix heat mapping. Implement Sci Commun 2023; 4:43. [PMID: 37098602 PMCID: PMC10127322 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-023-00424-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 04/27/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Identifying key determinants is crucial for improving program implementation and achieving long-term sustainment within healthcare organizations. Organizational-level complexity and heterogeneity across multiple stakeholders can complicate our understanding of program implementation. We describe two data visualization methods used to operationalize implementation success and to consolidate and select implementation factors for further analysis. METHODS We used a combination of process mapping and matrix heat mapping to systematically synthesize and visualize qualitative data from 66 stakeholder interviews across nine healthcare organizations, to characterize universal tumor screening programs of all newly diagnosed colorectal and endometrial cancers and understand the influence of contextual factors on implementation. We constructed visual representations of protocols to compare processes and score process optimization components. We also used color-coded matrices to systematically code, summarize, and consolidate contextual data using factors from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Combined scores were visualized in a final data matrix heat map. RESULTS Nineteen process maps were created to visually represent each protocol. Process maps identified the following gaps and inefficiencies: inconsistent execution of the protocol, no routine reflex testing, inconsistent referrals after a positive screen, no evidence of data tracking, and a lack of quality assurance measures. These barriers in patient care helped us define five process optimization components and used these to quantify program optimization on a scale from 0 (no program) to 5 (optimized), representing the degree to which a program is implemented and optimally maintained. Combined scores within the final data matrix heat map revealed patterns of contextual factors across optimized programs, non-optimized programs, and organizations with no program. CONCLUSIONS Process mapping provided an efficient method to visually compare processes including patient flow, provider interactions, and process gaps and inefficiencies across sites, thereby measuring implementation success via optimization scores. Matrix heat mapping proved useful for data visualization and consolidation, resulting in a summary matrix for cross-site comparisons and selection of relevant CFIR factors. Combining these tools enabled a systematic and transparent approach to understanding complex organizational heterogeneity prior to formal coincidence analysis, introducing a stepwise approach to data consolidation and factor selection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zachary M Salvati
- Geisinger Department of Genomic Health, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.
| | - Alanna Kulchak Rahm
- Geisinger Department of Genomic Health, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Marc S Williams
- Geisinger Department of Genomic Health, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Ilene Ladd
- Geisinger Department of Genomic Health, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Victoria Schlieder
- Geisinger Department of Genomic Health, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Jamie Atondo
- Geisinger Department of Genomic Health, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Jennifer L Schneider
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N. Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97202, USA
| | - Mara M Epstein
- Department of Medicine and the Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 365 Plantation St. Biotech 1, Suite 100, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA
| | - Christine Y Lu
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, USA
| | | | - Ravi N Sharaf
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Su-Ying Liang
- Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, 795 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, USA
| | - Andrea N Burnett-Hartman
- Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Institute for Health Research, 2550 S. Parker Rd., Ste 200, Aurora, CO, 80014, USA
| | - Jessica Ezzell Hunter
- RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA
| | | | - Deborah Cragun
- University of South Florida, 3720 Spectrum Blvd, Suite 304, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Baker A, Tolwinski K, Atondo J, Davis FD, Goehringer J, Jones LK, Pisieczko CJ, Sturm AC, Williams JL, Williams MS, Rahm AK, Buchanan AH. Understanding the Patient Experience of Receiving Clinically Actionable Genetic Results from the MyCode Community Health Initiative, a Population-Based Genomic Screening Initiative. J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12091511. [PMID: 36143296 PMCID: PMC9501087 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12091511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2022] [Revised: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 09/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Understanding unselected individuals’ experiences receiving genetic results through population genomic screening is critical to advancing clinical utility and improving population health. We conducted qualitative interviews with individuals who received clinically actionable genetic results via the MyCode© Genomic Screening and Counseling program. We purposively sampled cohorts to seek diversity in result-related disease risk (e.g., cancer or cardiovascular) and in personal or family history of related diseases. Transcripts were analyzed using a two-step inductive coding process of broad thematic analysis followed by in-depth coding of each theme. Four thematic domains identified across all cohorts were examined: process assessment, psychosocial response, behavioral change due to the genetic result, and family communication. Coding of 63 interviews among 60 participants revealed that participants were satisfied with the results disclosure process, initially experienced a range of positive, neutral, and negative psychological reactions to results, adjusted positively to results over time, undertook clinically indicated actions in response to results, and communicated results with relatives to whom they felt emotionally close. Our findings of generally favorable responses to receiving clinically actionable genetic results via a genomic screening program may assuage fear of patient distress in such programs and guide additional biobanks, genomic screening programs, and research studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Baker
- Department of Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA or
- Department of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
| | - Kasia Tolwinski
- Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada
| | - Jamie Atondo
- Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger, Danville, PA 17822, USA or
| | | | | | - Laney K. Jones
- Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger, Danville, PA 17822, USA or
- Heart and Vascular Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA 17822, USA
| | | | - Amy C. Sturm
- Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger, Danville, PA 17822, USA or
- 23andMe, Sunnyvale, CA 94086, USA
| | | | - Marc S. Williams
- Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger, Danville, PA 17822, USA or
| | | | - Adam H. Buchanan
- Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger, Danville, PA 17822, USA or
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|