Barriers and Facilitators in the Recruitment and Retention of More Than 250 Small Independent Primary Care Practices for EvidenceNOW

Building Statewide Quality Improvement Capacity to Improve Cardiovascular Care and Health Equity: Lessons from the Tennessee Heart Health Network

DRIVING FORCES

Many states with high rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) lack statewide quality improvement (QI) infrastructure (for example, resources, leadership, community) to address relevant health needs of the population. Academic health centers are well positioned to play a central role in addressing this deficiency. This article describes early experience and lessons learned in building statewide QI infrastructure through the Tennessee Heart Health Network (Network).

APPROACH

A statewide, multistakeholder network composed of primary care practices (PCPs), health systems, health plans, QI organizations, patients, and academic institutions was led by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC), an academic health center, to improve cardiovascular health by supporting dissemination and implementation of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) evidence-based interventions in primary care. PCPs were required to select and implement at least one of three interventions (health coaching, tailored health-related text messaging, and pharmacist-physician collaboration).

OUTCOMES AND KEY INSIGHTS

Thirty statewide organizational partners joined the Network in year one, including 18 health systems representing 77 PCPs (30.0% of 257 potentially eligible PCPs identified) with approximately 300,000 patients. The organizational partners share EHRs for the ongoing tracking and reporting of key health metrics, including hypertension control and delivery of tobacco cessation counseling. Of the 77 PCPs, 62 continue participation after year two (80.5% retention). Main barriers to participation and reasons for discontinuing participation included reluctance to share data and changes in leadership at the health system level. These 62 PCPs selected the following interventions to implement: health coaching (41.9%), tailored health-related text messages (48.4%), and pharmacist-physician collaboration (40.3%).

CONCLUSION AND WHAT'S NEXT

Academic health centers have broad reach and high acceptability by diverse stakeholders. Tennessee's experience illustrates how academic health centers can serve as platforms for building a statewide infrastructure for disseminating, implementing, and sustaining QI interventions at the practice level. Assessment of Network impact is ongoing.

Effort Required and Lessons Learned From Recruiting Health Plans and Rural Primary Care Practices for a Cancer Screening Outreach Study

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting organizations (i.e., health plans, health systems, or clinical practices) is important for implementation science, yet limited research explores effective strategies for engaging organizations in pragmatic studies. We explore the effort required to meet recruitment targets for a pragmatic implementation trial, characteristics of engaged and non-engaged clinical practices, and reasons health plans and rural clinical practices chose to participate.

METHODS

We explored recruitment activities and factors associated with organizational enrollment in SMARTER CRC, a randomized pragmatic trial to increase rates of CRC screening in rural populations. We sought to recruit 30 rural primary care practices within participating Medicaid health plans. We tracked recruitment outreach contacts, meeting content, and outcomes using tracking logs. Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we analyzed interviews, surveys, and publicly available clinical practice data to identify facilitators of participation.

RESULTS

Overall recruitment activities spanned January 2020 to April 2021. Five of the 9 health plans approached agreed to participate (55%). Three of the health plans chose to operate centrally as 1 site based on network structure, resulting in 3 recruited health plan sites. Of the 101 identified practices, 76 met study eligibility criteria; 51% (n = 39) enrolled. Between recruitment and randomization, 1 practice was excluded, 5 withdrew, and 7 practices were collapsed into 3 sites for randomization purposes based on clinical practice structure, leaving 29 randomized sites. Successful recruitment required iterative outreach across time, with a range of 2 to 17 encounters per clinical practice. Facilitators to recruitment included multi-modal outreach, prior relationships, effective messaging, flexibility, and good timing.

CONCLUSION

Recruiting health plans and rural clinical practices was complex and iterative. Leveraging existing relationships and allocating time and resources to engage clinical practices in pragmatic implementation research may facilitate more diverse representation in future trials and generalizability of research findings.

Facilitation of team-based care to improve HTN management and outcomes: a protocol for a randomized stepped wedge trial

BACKGROUND

There are well-established guidelines for treating hypertension (HTN), yet only half of patients with HTN meet the defined target of < 140/90. Team-based care (TBC) is an evidence-based strategy for improving blood pressure (BP) management and control. TBC is defined as the provision of health services by at least two health professionals "who work collaboratively with patients and their caregivers to accomplish shared goals to achieve coordinated, high-quality care". However, primary care practices experience challenges to implementing TBC principles and care processes; these are more pronounced in small independent practice settings (SIPs). Practice facilitation (PF) is an implementation strategy that may overcome barriers to adopting evidence-based TBC to improve HTN management in SIPs.

METHODS

Using a stepped wedge randomized controlled trial design, we will test the effect of PF on the adoption of TBC to improve HTN management in small practices (< 5 FTE clinicians) in New York City, and the impact on BP control compared with usual care. We will enroll 90 SIPs and randomize them into one of three 12-month intervention waves. Practice facilitators will support SIPs to adopt TBC principles to improve implementation of five HTN management strategies (i.e., panel management, population health, measuring BP, supporting medication adherence, self-management). The primary outcome is the adoption of TBC for HTN management measured at baseline and 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the rate of BP control and sustainability of TBC and BP outcomes at 18 months. Aggregated data on BP measures are collected every 6 months in all clusters so that each cluster provides data points in both the control and intervention conditions. Using a mixed methods approach, we will also explore factors that influence the effectiveness of PF at the organization and team level.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide much-needed guidance on how to optimize adoption and sustainability of TBC in independent primary care settings to reduce the burden of disease related to suboptimal BP control and advance understanding of how facilitation works to improve implementation of evidence-based interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT05413252 .

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy

BACKGROUND

Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts.

OBJECTIVE

Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy.

METHODS

Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes.

FINDINGS

Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator's role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process.

IMPACT

Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

What works to recruit general practices to trials? A rapid review

Background: Recruitment challenges are a barrier to the conduct of trials in general practice, yet little is known about which recruitment strategies work best to recruit practices for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe the types of strategies used to recruit general practices for trials and synthesize any available evidence of effectiveness. Methods: We conducted a rapid evidence review in line with guidance from Tricco et al. Eligible studies reported or evaluated any strategy to improve practice recruitment to participate in clinical or implementation RCTs. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library were searched from inception to June 22 nd, 2021. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Data were synthesized narratively. Results: Over 9,162 articles were identified, and 19 studies included. Most (n=13, 66.7%) used a single recruitment strategy. The most common strategies were: in-person practice meetings/visits by the research team (n=12, 63.2%); phone calls (n=10, 52.6%); financial incentives (n=9, 47.4%); personalised emails (n=7, 36.8%) or letters (n=6, 52.6%) (as opposed to email 'blasts' or generic letters); targeting practices that participated in previous studies or with which the team had existing links (n=6, 31.6%) or targeting of practices within an existing practice or research network (n=6, 31.6%).  Three studies reporting recruitment rates >80%, used strategies such as invitation letters with a follow-up phone call to non-responders, presentations by the principal investigator and study coordinator, or in-person meetings with practices with an existing affiliation with the University or research team.  Conclusions: Few studies directly compared recruitment approaches making it difficult to draw conclusions about their comparative effectiveness. However, the role of more personalised letter/email, in-person, or phone contact, and capitalising on existing relationships appears important. Further work is needed to standardise how recruitment methods are reported and to directly compare different recruitment strategies within one study . PROSPERO registration: CRD42021268140 (15/08/2021).

Considerations Before Selecting a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design for a Practice Improvement Study

PURPOSE

Despite the growing popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) for practice-based research, the design's advantages and challenges are not well documented. The objective of this study was to identify the advantages and challenges of the SW-CRT design for large-scale intervention implementations in primary care settings.

METHODS

The EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, included a large collection of SW-CRTs. We conducted qualitative interviews with 17 key informants from EvidenceNOW grantees to identify the advantages and challenges of using SW-CRT design.

RESULTS

All interviewees reported that SW-CRT can be an effective study design for large-scale intervention implementations. Advantages included (1) incentivized recruitment, (2) staggered resource allocation, and (3) statistical power. Challenges included (1) time-sensitive recruitment, (2) retention, (3) randomization requirements and practice preferences, (4) achieving treatment schedule fidelity, (5) intensive data collection, (6) the Hawthorne effect, and (7) temporal trends.

CONCLUSIONS

The challenges experienced by EvidenceNOW grantees suggest that certain favorable real-world conditions constitute a context that increases the odds of a successful SW-CRT. An existing infrastructure can support the recruitment of many practices. Strong retention plans are needed to continue to engage sites waiting to start the intervention. Finally, study outcomes should be ones already captured in routine practice; otherwise, funders and investigators should assess the feasibility and cost of data collection.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Measuring Implementation Strategy Fidelity in HealthyHearts NYC: A Complex Intervention Using Practice Facilitation in Primary Care

Few studies have assessed the fidelity of practice facilitation (PF) as an implementation strategy, and none have used an a priori definition or conceptual framework of fidelity to guide fidelity assessment. The authors adapted the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity to guide fidelity assessment in HealthyHearts NYC, an intervention that used PF to improve adoption of cardiovascular disease evidence-based guidelines in primary care practices. Data from a web-based tracking system of 257 practices measured fidelity using 4 categories: frequency, duration, content, and coverage. Almost all (94.2%) practices received at least the required 13 PF visits. Facilitators spent on average 26.3 hours at each site. Most practices (95.7%) completed all Task List items, and 71.2% were educated on all Chronic Care Model strategies. The majority (65.8%) received full coverage. This study provides a model that practice managers and implementers can use to evaluate fidelity of PF, and potentially other implementation strategies.