From novice to expert: a qualitative study of implementation facilitation skills

Quality Coordinators' Perspectives on Quality Improvement in Primary Healthcare in Kosovo: A Qualitative Study

AIMS

This qualitative descriptive study provides insights into the experiences of quality coordinators (QCs) in primary healthcare to inform policy and practice actions and empower QCs to enhance healthcare quality.

METHODS

We conducted focus group discussions with purposefully selected QCs to understand their motivations, job experiences, factors influencing healthcare quality, and suggestions for quality improvement. Content analysis and deductive coding were used to scrutinize the responses and answer the research questions.

RESULTS

The QCs thought highly about their job performance and were motivated by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Clinical audits, collegial reviews, and managerial support positively affected QCs' performance. In contrast, a lack of managerial support, limited working hours, and changes in organizing work caused the opposite. Empowerment and external support positively influenced healthcare quality, whereas lack of resources, managerial support, or training had a negative influence. Suggestions to improve quality include the role of QCs, external supervision, and centralization of the QCs' network.

CONCLUSION

Appointing QCs alone does not guarantee quality improvement. It is essential to ensure that QCs have the appropriate skills, tools, management support, and open communication channels. Further research is required to evaluate the effects of sex and age on QCs' performance.

Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation: a Mixed Methods Pilot Feasibility Study

We conducted a mixed methods pilot feasibility study of a Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation (SEDDI) process to facilitate using healthcare data to identify patient groups experiencing gaps in the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and rapidly adapt EBIs to achieve greater access and equitable outcomes. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of SEDDI in a pilot hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of a paired colorectal cancer (CRC) and social needs screening intervention at four federally qualified community health centers (CHCs). An external facilitator partnered with CHC teams to support initial implementation, followed by the SEDDI phase focused on advancing health equity. Facilitation sessions were delivered over 8 months. Preliminary evaluation of SEDDI involved convergent mixed methods with quantitative survey and focus group data. CHCs used data to identify gaps in outreach and completion of CRC screening with respect to race/ethnicity, gender, age, and language. Adaptations to improve access and use of the intervention included cultural, linguistic, and health literacy tailoring. CHC teams reported that facilitation and systematic review of data were helpful in identifying and prioritizing gaps. None of the four CHCs completed rapid cycle testing of adaptations largely due to competing priorities during the COVID-19 response. SEDDI has the potential for advancing chronic disease prevention and management by providing a stakeholder and data-driven approach to identify and prioritize health equity targets and guide adaptations to improve health equity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04585919.

Transforming Team Performance Through Reimplementation of the Surgical Safety Checklist

Importance

Patient safety interventions, like the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, require effective implementation strategies to achieve meaningful results. Institutions with underperforming checklists require evidence-based guidance for reimplementing these practices to maximize their impact on patient safety.

Objective

To assess the ability of a comprehensive system of safety checklist reimplementation to change behavior, enhance safety culture, and improve outcomes for surgical patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness study took place at 2 large academic referral centers in Singapore. All operations performed at either hospital were eligible for observation. Surveys were distributed to all operating room staff.

Intervention

The study team developed a comprehensive surgical safety checklist reimplementation package based on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework. Best practices from implementation science and human factors engineering were combined to redesign the checklist. The revised instrument was reimplemented in November 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Implementation outcomes included penetration and fidelity. The primary effectiveness outcome was team performance, assessed by trained observers using the Oxford Non-Technical Skills (NOTECH) system before and after reimplementation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture was used to assess safety culture and observers tracked device-related interruptions (DRIs). Patient safety events, near-miss events, 30-day mortality, and serious complications were tracked for exploratory analyses.

Results

Observers captured 252 cases (161 baseline and 91 end point). Penetration of the checklist was excellent at both time points, but there were significant improvements in all measures of fidelity after reimplementation. Mean NOTECHS scores increased from 37.1 to 42.4 points (4.3 point adjusted increase; 95% CI, 2.9-5.7; P < .001). DRIs decreased by 86.5% (95% CI, -22.1% to -97.8%; P = .03). Significant improvements were noted in 9 of 12 composite areas on culture of safety surveys. Exploratory analyses suggested reductions in patient safety events, mortality, and serious complications.

Conclusions and Relevance

Comprehensive reimplementation of an established checklist intervention can meaningfully improve team behavior, safety culture, patient safety, and patient outcomes. Future efforts will expand the reach of this system by testing a structured guidebook coupled with light-touch implementation guidance in a variety of settings.

Applying RE-AIM to examine the impact of an implementation facilitation package to scale up a program for Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

US Veterans are four times more likely to be diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared to the civilian population with no care model that consistently improves Veteran outcomes when scaled. COPD Coordinated Access to Reduce Exacerbations (CARE) is a care bundle intended to improve the delivery of evidence-based practices to Veterans. To address challenges to scaling this program in the Veterans' Health Administration (VA), the COPD CARE Academy (Academy), an implementation facilitation package comprised of five implementation strategies was designed and implemented.

METHODS

This evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach to assess the impact of the Academy's implementation strategies on the RE-AIM framework implementation outcomes and the extent to which they were effective at increasing clinicians' perceived capability to implement COPD CARE. A survey was administered one week after Academy participation and a semi-structured interview conducted 8 to 12 months later. Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative items and thematic analysis was used to analyze open-ended items.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinicians from 13 VA medical centers (VAMCs) participated in the Academy in 2020 and 2021 and 264 front-line clinicians completed COPD CARE training. Adoption of the Academy was indicated by high rates of Academy session attendance (90%) and high utilization of Academy resources. Clinicians reported the Academy to be acceptable and appropriate as an implementation package and clinicians from 92% of VAMCs reported long-term utilization of Academy resources. Effectiveness of the Academy was represented by clinicians' significant increases (p < 0.05) in their capability to complete ten implementation tasks after Academy participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation found that the use of implementation facilitation paired with additional strategies enhanced the capacity of clinicians to implement COPD CARE. Future assessments are needed to explore post-academy resources that would help VAMCs to strategize localized approaches to overcome barriers.

Visual thinking Strategies and the peril of 'see one, do one, teach one'

Visual Thinking Strategies is an arts and humanities pedagogical intervention increasingly incorporated into medical education. As a straightforward method that appears easy to use, its nuances are often overlooked or-less frequently-improperly implemented entirely. Such haphazard use can lead to lessened impact for learners, and result in inconsistent and non-generalizable findings in studies in the nascent field of arts and humanities medical education. Critical and often glossed-over components of Visual Thinking Strategies include choosing the appropriate artwork, adhering to the specific 3-question language of the method, facilitating dialogue with effective paraphrasing, framing and linking of participant comments, intentionally utilizing non-verbal communication, and carefully setting up the environment. These components can be systematically taught by strengthening Visual Thinking Strategies training for faculty and adopting faculty development techniques from the K-12 education realm, namely peer and video feedback, where VTS has been used and fine-tuned for decades. It is an opportune time to begin rigorous faculty coaching for Visual Thinking Strategies facilitation and set the standard for art and humanities interventions in medical education.

Implementing a ward-based programme to improve care for older inpatients: process evaluation of the cluster randomised CHERISH trial

BACKGROUND

Older inpatients are at high risk of hospital-associated complications, particularly delirium and functional decline. These can be mitigated by consistent attention to age-friendly care practices such as early mobility, adequate nutrition and hydration, and meaningful cognitive and social activities. Eat Walk Engage is a ward-based improvement programme theoretically informed by the i-PARIHS framework which significantly reduced delirium in a four-hospital cluster trial. The objective of this process evaluation was to understand how Eat Walk Engage worked across trial sites.

METHODS

Prospective multi-method implementation evaluation on medical and surgical wards in four hospitals implementing Eat Walk Engage January 2016-May 2017. Using UK Medical Research Council guidance, this process evaluation assessed context, implementation (core components, implementation strategies and improvements) and mechanisms of impact (practice changes measured through older person interviews, structured mealtime observations and activity mapping) at each site.

RESULTS

The four wards had varied contextual barriers which altered dynamically with time. One ward with complex outer organisational barriers showed poorer implementation and fewer practice changes. Two experienced facilitators supported four novice site facilitators through interactive training and structured reflection as well as data management, networking and organisational influence. Novice site facilitators used many implementation strategies to facilitate 45 discrete improvements at individual, team and system level. Patient interviews (42 before and 38 after implementation) showed better communication about program goals in three sites. Observations of 283 meals before and 297 after implementation showed improvements in mealtime positioning and assistance in all sites. Activity mapping in 85 patients before and 111 patients after implementation showed improvements in cognitive and social engagement in three sites, but inconsistent changes in mobility. The improvements in mealtime care and cognitive and social engagement are plausible mediators of reduced delirium observed in the trial. The lack of consistent mobility improvements may explain why the trial did not show reduction in functional decline.

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-level enabling facilitation approach supported adaptive implementation to varied contexts to support mechanisms of impact which partly achieved the programme goals. Contexts changed over time, suggesting the need for adequate time and continued facilitation to embed, enhance and sustain age-friendly practices on acute care wards and optimise outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The CHERISH trial was prospectively registered with the ANZCTR ( http://www.anzctr.org.au ): ACTRN12615000879561.

Facilitating implementation of primary care mental health over time and across organizational contexts: a qualitative study of role and process

BACKGROUND

Healthcare organizations have increasingly utilized facilitation to improve implementation of evidence-based practices and programs (e.g., primary care mental health integration). Facilitation is both a role, related to the purpose of facilitation, and a process, i.e., how a facilitator operationalizes the role. Scholars continue to call for a better understanding of this implementation strategy. Although facilitation is described as dynamic, activities are often framed within the context of a staged process. We explored two understudied characteristics of implementation facilitation: 1) how facilitation activities change over time and in response to context, and 2) how facilitators operationalize their role when the purpose of facilitation is both task-focused (i.e., to support implementation) and holistic (i.e., to build capacity for future implementation efforts).

METHODS

We conducted individual monthly debriefings over thirty months with facilitators who were supporting PCMHI implementation in two VA networks. We developed a list of facilitation activities based on a literature review and debriefing notes and conducted a content analysis of debriefing notes by coding what activities occurred and their intensity by quarter. We also coded whether facilitators were "doing" these activities for sites or "enabling" sites to perform them.

RESULTS

Implementation facilitation activities did not occur according to a defined series of ordered steps but in response to specific organizational contexts through a non-linear and incremental process. Amount and types of activities varied between the networks. Concordant with facilitators' planned role, the focus of some facilitation activities was primarily on doing them for the sites and others on enabling sites to do for themselves; a number of activities did not fit into one category and varied across networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that facilitation is a dynamic and fluid process, with facilitation activities, as well as their timing and intensity, occurring in response to specific organizational contexts. Understanding this process can help those planning and applying implementation facilitation to make conscious choices about the facilitation role and the activities that facilitators can use to operationalize this role. Additionally, this work provides the foundation from which future studies can identify potential mechanisms of action through which facilitation activities enhance implementation uptake.

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.

Training and support for the role of facilitator in implementation of innovations in health and community care: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Implementing and sustaining innovations in clinical practice, such as evidence-based practices, programmes, and policies, is frequently described as challenging. Facilitation as a strategy for supporting implementation requires a facilitator, i.e. an individual with a designated role to support the implementation process. A growing number of studies report that facilitation can help tackle the challenges in implementation efforts. To optimise the potential contribution of facilitation as a strategy to improve the implementation of new practices, there is a need to enhance understanding about what training and support is required for individuals in the facilitator role. The objective of this scoping review is to map how facilitators have been trained for, and supported in, the facilitator role in implementation studies in health and community care. Specifically, the review aims to examine what is reported on training and support of facilitators in terms of learning outcomes, content, dose, mode of delivery, learning activities, and qualifications of the trainers and how the facilitators perceive training and support.

METHODS

This scoping review will follow the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review checklist. We will include articles in which (a) facilitation is deployed as an implementation strategy, with identified facilitator roles targeting staff and managers, to support the implementation of specified innovations in health or community care, and (b) training and/or support of facilitators is reported. We will exclude articles where facilitation is directed to education or training in specific clinical procedures or if facilitation supports the implementation of general quality improvement systems. All types of peer-reviewed studies and study protocols published in English will be included. A systematic search will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (embase.com), Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL (Ebsco).

DISCUSSION

The proposed scoping review will provide a systematic mapping of the literature on the training and support of implementation facilitators and contribute useful knowledge within the field of implementation science to inform future facilitation initiatives.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Registered at Open Science Framework (registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M6NPQ ).

Training Staff Across the Veterans Affairs Health Care System to Use Mobile Mental Health Apps: A National Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND

The National Center for PTSD, within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), has developed a suite of free, publicly available, evidence-informed apps that can reach an increasing number of veterans and bridge gaps in care by providing resources to those who are not engaged in mental health treatment. To expand the reach of these apps, staff across VA service lines learned about these apps, their features and limitations, and how to introduce them to veterans.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop, disseminate, and evaluate a training for multidisciplinary staff as part of a national quality improvement project to increase the reach of mobile mental health apps as a resource for veterans.

METHODS

Sites from all of VA's 18 geographic regions enrolled in this project. At each site, a minimum of 25 VA staff members who had direct contact with veterans, including staff from the mental health service line and all other service lines, were recruited to participate. Training included a 3-hour multidisciplinary core module, and a 1-hour clinical integration module designed specifically for mental health clinicians. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trainings were adapted to a live, web-based format. Pre- and posttraining surveys assessed program reach (ie, participants enrolled per site), satisfaction, and effectiveness of the training as measured by changes in knowledge, basic skills, and behavioral intentions to use apps with veterans.

RESULTS

A total of 1110 participants representing 34 disciplines at 19 VA sites completed the training. Overall, 67% (743/1109) of participants were mental health staff members. Sites averaged 58.4 participants (SD 36.49, median [IQR] 51). Most (961/1024, 93.85%) participants were satisfied with the training and reported that they (941/1018, 92.44%) would recommend it to others. App knowledge scores significantly increased from pretraining (mean 80.8% correct, SD 15.77%) to posttraining (mean 91.1% correct, SD 9.57%; P<.001). At posttraining, participants also reported greater confidence in their ability to show veterans how to download (z=-13.86; P<.001) and use VA mental health apps (z=-15.13; P<.001). There was near universal endorsement by staff for their intentions to recommend apps to veterans as well as their ability to think of at least one specific veteran to whom they could recommend an app. Staff also reported a strong motivation to encourage other VA staff to share apps with veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

The training far exceeded the initial goals for staff recruitment and training for all three metrics. Overall, 33% (366/1109) of participants came from service lines outside of mental health, indicating the feasibility of introducing these mental health resources during medical appointments and in other contexts.

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).

Mechanisms of change in external implementation support: A conceptual model and case examples to guide research and practice

Background

External implementation support (EIS) is a well-recognized feature of implementation science and practice, often under related terms such as technical assistance and implementation facilitation. Existing models of EIS have gaps related to addressing practice outcomes at both individual and organizational levels, connecting practice activities to intended outcomes, or grounding in well-established theories of behavior and organization change. Moreover, there have been calls to clarify the mechanisms of change through which EIS influences related outcomes.

Method

In this article, we theorize about mechanisms of change within EIS. Our theorizing process aligns with the approach advocated by Kislov et al. We aim to consolidate prior EIS literature, combining related constructs from previous empirical and conceptual work while drawing on our extensive EIS experience to develop a higher-order, midrange theory of change.

Results

Our theory of change is empirically and practically informed, conceptually situated within an established grand theory of change, and guided by eight practice principles and social cognitive theory. The theory of change proposes 10 core practice components as mechanisms of change within EIS. When used according to underlying theory and principles, they are believed to contribute to favorable practice outcomes at individual, team, organizational, and system levels. The model offers flexibility by recognizing the need for sequential support processes and the demand to practice in dynamic and responsive ways. Case examples are presented to illustrate major themes and patterns of the model in action.

Conclusions

The proposed model is intended to support prospective EIS studies by conceptualizing discernable practice components with hypothesized relationships to proximal and distal practice outcomes. The model can be behaviorally operationalized to compliment and extend competency-based approaches to implementation support practitioner (ISP) training and coaching. Over time, the model should be refined based on new empirical findings and contributions from ISPs across the field.

Development of a qualitative data analysis codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework

Background

The Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and its predecessor, PARIHS, have been widely utilized in implementation studies. Although i-PARIHS developers have focused on creating tools to guide facilitators in its application in practice, tools are also needed for evaluation and research. Codebooks with clear and meaningful code labels and definitions are an important component of qualitative data analysis and have been developed for other widely used frameworks. There is no such codebook for i-PARIHS. Additionally, sub-constructs for the Innovation, Recipients, and Context constructs lack definitions, and there is no sub-classification of facilitation activities for the Facilitation construct. The lack of a standardized codebook hinders our ability to synthesize research findings across studies, explore and test the range of activities that are utilized in facilitation efforts, and potentially validate and further refine i-PARIHS. This paper describes a rigorous process of developing a detailed qualitative codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework.

Methods

A workgroup of qualitative researchers conducted a rigorous four-phase process to develop a codebook informed by i-PARIHS. In phase 1, workgroup members reviewed and discussed literature, consulted an organizational scientist, and drafted and refined subcodes and definitions for i-PARIHS constructs. In phase 2, they obtained feedback from an expert panel and further refined subcodes and definitions. In phase 3, they obtained feedback from i-PARIHS developers/experts and incorporated it into the codebook. Finally, two studies piloted the application of the codebook which informed the final version.

Results

The resulting i-PARIHS-informed codebook includes definitions for the four main constructs of the framework: Innovation, Recipients, Context, and Facilitation; subcodes and definitions for characteristics of each of these constructs; and instructions for the suggested application of individual codes and use of the codebook generally.

Conclusions

The standardized codes and definitions in the codebook can facilitate data exploration, pattern identification, and insight development informed by the i-PARIHS framework. Qualitative analysts can also use them to explore interactions between i-PARIHS constructs, maximize the potential for comparing findings across studies, and support the refinement of the i-PARIHS framework using empirical findings from multiple studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00344-9.

Implementation of a Health Promotion Practice Using Individually Targeted Lifestyle Interventions in Primary Health Care: Protocol for the "Act in Time" Mixed Methods Process Evaluation Study

Background

There is growing evidence that noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) can be attributable to unhealthy lifestyle habits. However, there has been little application of this knowledge in primary health care (PHC).

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the process and outcomes of a multifaceted implementation strategy for a healthy lifestyle-promoting practice in a PHC setting. This practice is based on national guidelines targeting unhealthy lifestyle habits with a potential risk for NCDs.

Methods

A pre-post implementation study design with a control group is used in a PHC setting in central Sweden. The Medical Research Council guidelines for process evaluation of complex interventions will be applied. The implementation process and outcomes will be assessed using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods. A strategic sample of up to 6 PHC centers will be included as intervention centers, which will receive a 12-month multifaceted implementation strategy. Up to 6 matched PHC centers will serve as controls. Core components in the implementation strategy are external and internal facilitators in line with the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and the Astrakan change leadership model. Data will be collected at baseline, during the implementation phase, and 4-6 months after the implementation strategy. Questionnaires will be sent to roughly 500 patients in every PHC center and 200 health care professionals (HCPs) before and after implementation. In addition, purposeful sampling will be used for interviews and focus group discussions with managers, HCPs, patient representatives, and internal and external facilitators. Use of data from medical records and activity logs will be an additional data source.

Results

Recruitment of PHC centers began in March 2021 and ended in Spring 2022. Based on the planned timeline with the 12-month implementation strategy and 4-6-month follow-up, we expect to collect the final data in Summer 2023.

Conclusions

This study will explain implementation process and outcomes using a multifaceted implementation strategy for a healthy lifestyle-promoting practice in a real-world PHC context. The study is expected to provide new knowledge about the role of facilitators and their contribution to implementation outcomes. These findings can guide policy makers, managers, and PHC staff to integrate health promotion and disease prevention in PHC and provide methodological support to facilitators.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04799860; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04799860

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/37634

Protocol for evaluating external facilitation as a strategy to nationally implement a novel stigma reduction training tool for healthcare providers

Background

Identity Development Evolution and Sharing (IDEAS) is a theatre-based intervention for reducing healthcare provider stigma. IDEAS films are created by collecting narratives from people who have experienced discrimination and healthcare inequity, partnering with professional playwrights to create theatrical scripts that maintain the words of the narratives while arranging them into compelling storylines involving several interviews, and hiring professional actors to perform and record scenes. IDEAS implementation requires a moderator to establish a respectful learning environment, play the filmed performance, set ground rules for discussion, and moderate a discussion between healthcare providers who viewed the film and invited panelists who are members of the minoritized population being discussed. IDEAS’ impact on provider stigma is measured via pre/post Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – Stigma (AAQ-S) data collected from participating providers. The objectives of this manuscript are to provide narrative review of how provider stigma may lead to healthcare inequity and health disparities, describe the conceptual frameworks underpinning the IDEAS intervention, and outline methods for IDEAS implementation and implementation evaluation.

Methods

This manuscript describes a hybrid type 3 design study protocol that uses the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to evaluate external facilitation, used as an implementation strategy to expand the reach of IDEAS. CFIR is also used to assess the impact of characteristics of the intervention and implementation climate on implementation success. Implementation success is defined by intervention feasibility and acceptability as well as self-efficacy of internal facilitators. This manuscript details the protocol for collection and evaluation of implementation data alongside that of effectiveness data. The manuscript provides new information about the use of configurational analysis, which uses Boolean algebra to analyze pathways to implementation success considering each variable, within and across diverse clinical sites across the USA.

Discussion

The significance of this protocol is that it outlines important information for future hybrid type 3 designs wishing to incorporate configurational analyses and/or studies using behavioral or atypical, complex, innovative interventions. The current lack of evidence supporting occupational justice-focused interventions and the strong evidence of stigma influencing health inequities underscore the necessity for the IDEAS intervention.

Oilcloth sessions as an implementation strategy: a qualitative study in Denmark

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore healthcare professionals, managers, and other key employees' experiences of oilcloth sessions as a strategy when implementing new emergency departments in Denmark, based on their participations in these sessions. The study addresses the importance of securing alignment in implementation strategies. Too often, this does not get enough attention in the literature and in practice. In this study, alignment among components was achieved in an educational implementation strategy called oilcloth sessions.

METHODS

The study is based on participants' observations of 13 oilcloth sessions and follow-up via 53 semi-structured interviews with the board of directors, managers, and key employees from the present emergency department and different specialty departments. Data were analysed deductively using Biggs and Tang's model of didactic alignment.

RESULTS

The analysis showed the complexity of challenges when using oilcloth sessions as a strategy when implementing a new emergency department described in terms of three phases and nine main themes (a-i): the preparation phase: (a) preparing individually and collectively, (b) objectives, (c) involving participants, (d) selecting cases; the execution phase: (e) using materials, (f) facilitating the sessions, (g) temporal structures; evaluation: (h) following up on the sessions, (i) adapting to the context.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that it is important to ensure alignment among elements in implementation strategies. Thus, oilcloth sessions with high alignment are useful if the challenges experienced are to be overcome and the strategy will be experienced as a useful way to support the implementation of a new emergency department from the participants' point of view. Bigg and Tang's didactic model is useful as an analytical framework to ensure alignment in implementation strategies in general.

Primary aim results of a clustered SMART for developing a school-level, adaptive implementation strategy to support CBT delivery at high schools in Michigan

Background

Schools increasingly provide mental health services to students, but often lack access to implementation strategies to support school-based (and school professional [SP]) delivery of evidence-based practices. Given substantial heterogeneity in implementation barriers across schools, development of adaptive implementation strategies that guide which implementation strategies to provide to which schools and when may be necessary to support scale-up.

Methods

A clustered, sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) of high schools across Michigan was used to inform the development of a school-level adaptive implementation strategy for supporting SP-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). All schools were first provided with implementation support informed by Replicating Effective Programs (REP) and then were randomized to add in-person Coaching or not (phase 1). After 8 weeks, schools were assessed for response based on SP-reported frequency of CBT delivered to students and/or barriers reported. Responder schools continued with phase 1 implementation strategies. Slower-responder schools (not providing ≥ 3 CBT components to ≥10 students or >2 organizational barriers identified) were re-randomized to add Facilitation to current support or not (phase 2). The primary aim hypothesis was that SPs at schools receiving the REP + Coaching + Facilitation adaptive implementation strategy would deliver more CBT sessions than SPs at schools receiving REP alone. Secondary aims compared four implementation strategies (Coaching vs no Coaching × Facilitation vs no Facilitation) on CBT sessions delivered, including by type (group, brief and full individual). Analyses used a marginal, weighted least squares approach developed for clustered SMARTs.

Results

SPs (n = 169) at 94 high schools entered the study. N = 83 schools (88%) were slower-responders after phase 1. Contrary to the primary aim hypothesis, there was no evidence of a significant difference in CBT sessions delivered between REP + Coaching + Facilitation and REP alone (111.4 vs. 121.1 average total CBT sessions; p = 0.63). In secondary analyses, the adaptive strategy that offered REP + Facilitation resulted in the highest average CBT delivery (154.1 sessions) and the non-adaptive strategy offering REP + Coaching the lowest (94.5 sessions).

Conclusions

The most effective strategy in terms of average SP-reported CBT delivery is the adaptive implementation strategy that (i) begins with REP, (ii) augments with Facilitation for slower-responder schools (schools where SPs identified organizational barriers or struggled to deliver CBT), and (iii) stays the course with REP for responder schools.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541317, May 30, 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01211-w.

Implementation fidelity, attitudes, and influence: a novel approach to classifying implementer behavior

Background

The current study sought to (1) describe a new classification approach for types of implementer behavior and (2) explore the implementer behavior change in response to tailored implementation facilitation based on the classifications.

Methods

A small-scale, cluster-randomized hybrid type III implementation trial was conducted in 38 early care and education classrooms that were part of the Together, We Inspire Smart Eating (WISE) program. WISE focuses on 4 evidence-based practices (EBPs), which are implemented by teachers to promote nutrition. External facilitators (N = 3) used a modified Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) to complete immersion (i.e., observations) and thematic content analyses of interviews to identify the characteristics of teachers’ behavior at varying levels of implementation fidelity. Three key factors—attitudes toward the innovation, fidelity/adaptations, and influence—were identified that the research team used to classify teachers’ implementation behavior. This process resulted in a novel classification approach. To assess the reliability of applying the classification approach, we assessed the percent agreement between the facilitators. Based on the teachers’ classification, the research team developed a tailored facilitation response. To explore behavior change related to the tailored facilitation, change in fidelity and classification across the school year were evaluated.

Results

The classifications include (1) enthusiastic adopters (positive attitude, meeting fidelity targets, active influence), (2) over-adapting adopters (positive attitude, not meeting fidelity targets, active influence), (3) passive non-adopters (negative attitude, not meeting fidelity targets, passive influence), and (4) active non-adopters (negative attitudes, not meeting fidelity targets, active influence). The average percent agreement among the three facilitators for classification was 75%. Qualitative data support distinct patterns of perceptions across the classifications. A positive shift in classification was observed for 67% of cases between the mid-point and final classification. Finally, we generated an expanded classification approach to consider additional combinations of the three factors beyond those observed in this study.

Conclusions

Data from this study support the ability to apply the classification approach with moderate to high reliability and to use the approach to tailor facilitation toward improved implementation. Findings suggest the potential of our approach for wider application and potential to improve tailoring of implementation strategies such as facilitation.

Translating mental health recovery guidelines into recovery-oriented innovations: A strategy combining implementation teams and a facilitated planning process

Recovery is the focus of mental health strategies internationally. However, little translation of recovery knowledge has occurred in mental health services. The purpose of this research is to bridge the gap between recovery guidelines and practice by developing a new implementation strategy involving the formation of implementation teams made up of different stakeholders (service users, service providers, managers, knowledge users) and facilitating a 12-meeting implementation planning process. Sevenmental health organizations across Canada successfully completed the process of translating the guidelines into a recovery-oriented innovation that was implemented. Fifty-five implementation team members were interviewed upon completion of the 12-meeting process. Findings indicate that implementation team members perceived the structured planning process as positive. Nevertheless, the language of implementation science remains difficult to understand for a non-academic audience. Key elements of the 12-meeting process included the value of consensus building among implementation team members and the subsequent shifting power relationships. While working with diverse stakeholders came with certain challenges, the process in itself was a form of system transformation. This type of engaged planning process was a significant departure from the more top-down approaches to organizational change that staff were used to.

Is implementation research out of step with implementation practice? Pathways to effective implementation support over the last decade

Background: There is growing interest in the lived experience of professionals who provide implementation support (i.e., implementation support practitioners). However, there remains limited knowledge about their experiences and how those experiences can contribute to the knowledge base on what constitutes successful and sustainable implementation support models. This study aimed to examine pathways of implementation support practice, as described by experienced professionals actively supporting systems' uptake and sustainment of evidence to benefit children and families. Methods: Seventeen individuals with extensive experience providing implementation support in various settings participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and episode profile analysis approaches. Iterative diagramming was used to visualize the various pathways of implementation support practitioners' role reflection and transformation evidenced by the interview data. Results: Findings highlighted rich pathways of implementation support practitioners' role reflection and transformation. Participants described their roots in providing implementation support as it relates to implementing and expanding the use of evidence-based programs and practices in child and family services. Almost all participants reflected on the early stages of their careers providing implementation support and described a trajectory starting with the use of "push models," which evolved into "pull models" and eventually "co-creation or exchange models" of implementation support involving both technical and relational skills. Conclusions: Developing an implementation support workforce will require a deeper understanding of this lived experience to prevent repeated use of strategies observed to be unsuccessful by those most proximal to the work. The pathways for implementation practice in this study highlight impressive leaps forward in the field of implementation over the last 15 years and speaks to the importance of the professionals leading change efforts in this growth.

Plain Language Summary

Over the past few years, professionals in the field of implementation science have identified a growing gap between implementation research and implementation practice. While this issue has been highlighted informally, the field is lacking a shared understanding and clear way forward to reconcile this gap. In this paper, the authors describe how professionals providing implementation support have shifted their implementation practice over time through systematic observations of what works (and what does not work) for supporting and sustaining evidence use in service systems to improve population outcomes. The authors share the impressive leaps forward made in the field of implementation practice - from didactic training to responsive and tailored implementation strategies to co-created and relationship-based implementation solutions. The paper concludes with a call to action to the field for the creation of a virtuous learning cycle between professionals conducting implementation research and professionals providing implementation support to change practice as a way to produce a more robust and relevant science of implementation.

Reflective writing: a tool to support continuous learning and improved effectiveness in implementation facilitators

BACKGROUND

Implementation facilitators support the adoption of evidence-based practices and other improvement efforts in complex healthcare settings. Facilitators are trained to develop essential facilitation skills and facilitator effectiveness is typically evaluated post-implementation, but little is known about how facilitators apply and adapt didactic knowledge after training, or how learning and refining experiential knowledge occurs during the facilitation process. We propose the use of reflective writing as a tool to document and support facilitator learning and facilitator effectiveness.

METHODS

Using an instrumental case study of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project, we explore the use of reflective writing by facilitators to support their learning and effectiveness. Six primary care clinics participated in weekly hour-long facilitation calls over a 12-month period to implement quality improvement projects related to care coordination. Two facilitators completed templated reflections after each facilitation call for their assigned sites, totaling 269 reflections. We used the declarative-procedural-reflective model, which defines the process of skill development in clinical practice, to qualitatively analyze the reflections. Two independent coders used content analysis principles to code text that captured facilitators' observations, evaluations, interpretations, and communication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze reflections by facilitator and by code within and across reflections.

RESULTS

CTAC facilitators primarily used the reflections to summarize the calls (observation), assess the facilitation process and the tasks and activities they used (evaluation), document their thoughts about how to improve their own effectiveness (interpretation), and describe their communication with implementing teams. Ninety-one percent of reflections included observations, 42% interpretation, 41% evaluation, and 44% facilitator communication. In total, we coded 677 segments of text within reflections: 39% represented observation, 20% interpretation, 18% evaluation, and 23% facilitator communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of reflective writing allowed the CTAC facilitators the time and structure to evaluate their facilitation and to think critically about how to adjust their facilitation in response to their observations and interpretations. Reflective writing is a feasible and acceptable tool to support and document facilitator learning and effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03063294 ) on February 24, 2017.

Multi-tiered external facilitation: the role of feedback loops and tailored interventions in supporting change in a stepped-wedge implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Facilitation is a complex, relational implementation strategy that guides change processes. Facilitators engage in multiple activities and tailor efforts to local contexts. How this work is coordinated and shared among multiple, external actors and the contextual factors that prompt and moderate facilitators to tailor activities have not been well-described.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to improve the quality of transient ischemic attack care. Six sites in the Veterans Health Administration received external facilitation (EF) before and during a 1-year active implementation period. We examined how EF was employed and activated. Data analysis included prospective logs of facilitator correspondence with sites (160 site-directed episodes), stakeholder interviews (a total of 78 interviews, involving 42 unique individuals), and collaborative call debriefs (n=22) spanning implementation stages. Logs were descriptively analyzed across facilitators, sites, time periods, and activity types. Interview transcripts were coded for content related to EF and themes were identified. Debriefs were reviewed to identify instances of and utilization of EF during site critical junctures.

RESULTS

Multi-tiered EF was supported by two groups (site-facing quality improvement [QI] facilitators and the implementation support team) that were connected by feedback loops. Each site received an average of 24 episodes of site-directed EF; most of the EF was delivered by the QI nurse. For each site, site-directed EF frequently involved networking (45%), preparation and planning (44%), process monitoring (44%), and/or education (36%). EF less commonly involved audit and feedback (20%), brainstorming solutions (16%), and/or stakeholder engagement (5%). However, site-directed EF varied widely across sites and time periods in terms of these facilitation types. Site participants recognized the responsiveness of the QI nurse and valued her problem-solving, feedback, and accountability support. External facilitators used monitoring and dialogue to intervene by facilitating redirection during challenging periods of uncertainty about project direction and feasibility for sites. External facilitators, in collaboration with the implementation support team, successfully used strategies tailored to diverse local contexts, including networking, providing data, and brainstorming solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-tiered facilitation capitalizing on emergent feedback loops allowed for tailored, site-directed facilitation. Critical juncture cases illustrate the complexity of EF and the need to often try multiple strategies in combination to facilitate implementation progress.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurological Symptoms (PREVENT) is a registered trial ( NCT02769338 ), May 11, 2016-prospectively registered.

Sustaining implementation facilitation: a model for facilitator resilience

BACKGROUND

Implementation facilitators enable healthcare staff to effectively implement change, yet little is known about their affective (e.g., emotional, mental, physical) experiences of facilitation. We propose an expansion to the Integrated Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework that introduces facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience to better assess facilitators' affective experiences.

METHODS

We used an instrumental case study and facilitator data (logged reflections and debrief session notes) from the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching initiative to conceptualize facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience and to better understand the psychological impact of the facilitation process on facilitator effectiveness and implementation success.

RESULTS

We define facilitation intensity as both the quantitative and/or qualitative measure of the volume of tasks and activities needed to engage and motivate recipients in implementation, and the psychological impact on the facilitator of conducting facilitation tasks and activities. We define facilitator resilience as the ability to cope with and adapt to the complexities of facilitation in order to effectively engage and motivate staff, while nurturing and sustaining hope, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping behaviors in oneself.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitators' affective experience may help to identify potential relationships between the facilitation factors we propose (facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience). Future studies should test ways of reliably measuring facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience and specify their relationships in greater detail. By supporting facilitator resilience, healthcare delivery systems may help sustain the skilled facilitator workforce necessary for continued practice improvement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03063294 ) on February 24, 2017.

From novice to expert: methods for transferring implementation facilitation skills to improve healthcare delivery

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that facilitation can address the challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations. However, facilitators need a wide variety of complex skills; lack of these can have a negative effect on implementation outcomes. Literature suggests that novice and less experienced facilitators need ongoing support from experts to develop these skills. Yet, no studies have investigated the transfer process. During a test of a facilitation strategy applied at 8 VA primary care clinics, we explored the techniques and processes an expert external facilitator utilized to transfer her skills to two initially novice internal facilitators who became experts.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted monthly debriefings with three facilitators over a 30-month period and documented these in detailed notes. Debriefings with the expert facilitator focused on how she trained and mentored facilitation trainees. We also conducted, recorded, and transcribed two semi-structured qualitative interviews with each facilitator and queried them about training content and process. We used a mix of inductive and deductive approaches to analyze data; our analysis was informed by a review of mentoring, coaching, and cognitive apprenticeship literature. We also used a case comparison approach to explore how the expert tailored her efforts.

RESULTS

The expert utilized 21 techniques to transfer implementation facilitation skills. Techniques included both active (providing information, modeling, and coaching) and participatory ones. She also used techniques to support learning, i.e., cognitive supports (making thinking visible, using heuristics, sharing experiences), psychosocial supports, strategies to promote self-learning, and structural supports. Additionally, she transferred responsibility for facilitation through a dynamic process of interaction with trainees and site stakeholders. Finally, the expert varied the level of focus on particular skills to tailor her efforts to trainee and local context.

CONCLUSIONS

This study viewed the journey from novice to expert facilitator through the lens of the expert who transferred facilitation skills to support implementation of an evidence-based program. It identified techniques and processes that may foster transfer of these skills and build organizational capacity for future implementation efforts. As the first study to document the implementation facilitation skills transfer process, findings have research and practical implications.

Comparative effectiveness of external vs blended facilitation on collaborative care model implementation in slow-implementer community practices

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of external facilitation (EF) vs external + internal facilitation (EF/IF), on uptake of a collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in community practices that were slower to implement under low-level implementation support.

STUDY SETTING

Primary data were collected from 43 community practices in Michigan and Colorado at baseline and for 12 months following randomization.

STUDY DESIGN

Sites that failed to meet a pre-established implementation benchmark after six months of low-level implementation support were randomized to add either EF or EF/IF support for up to 12 months. Key outcomes were change in number of patients receiving the CCM and number of patients receiving a clinically significant dose of the CCM. Moderators' analyses further examined whether comparative effectiveness was dependent on prerandomization adoption, number of providers trained or practice size. Facilitation log data were used for exploratory follow-up analyses.

DATA COLLECTION

Sites reported monthly on number of patients that had received the CCM. Facilitation logs were completed by study EF and site IFs and shared with the study team.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

N = 21 sites were randomized to EF and 22 to EF/IF. Overall, EF/IF practices saw more uptake than EF sites after 12 months (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = 4.4 patients, 95% CI = 1.87-6.87). Moderators' analyses, however, revealed that it was only sites with no prerandomization uptake of the CCM (nonadopter sites) that saw significantly more benefit from EF/IF (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = 9.2 patients, 95% CI: 5.72, 12.63). For sites with prerandomization uptake (adopter sites), EF/IF offered no additional benefit (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = -0.9; 95% CI: -4.40, 2.60). Number of providers trained and practice size were not significant moderators.

CONCLUSIONS

Although stepping up to the more intensive EF/IF did outperform EF overall, its benefit was limited to sites that failed to deliver any CCM under the low-level strategy. Once one or more providers were delivering the CCM, additional on-site personnel did not appear to add value to the implementation effort.