Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority inpatient initiatives in the safety net setting

Defining the transition from new to normal: a qualitative investigation of the clinical change process

Background

Understanding how and when a new evidence-based clinical intervention becomes standard practice is crucial to ensure that healthcare is delivered in alignment with the most up-to-date knowledge. However, rigorous methods are needed to determine when a new clinical practice becomes normalized to the standard of care. To address this gap, this study qualitatively explores how, when, and why a clinical practice change becomes normalized within healthcare organizations.

Methods

We used purposive sampling to recruit clinical leaders who worked in implementation science across diverse health contexts. Enrolled participants completed semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data analysis was guided by a modified version of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) framework to identify salient themes. Identified normalization strategies were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) project.

Results

A total of 17 individuals were interviewed. Participants described four key signals for identifying when a novel clinical practice becomes the new normal: 1) integration into existing workflows; 2) scaling across the entire organizational unit; 3) staff buy-in and ownership; and 4) sustainment without ongoing monitoring. Participants identified salient strategies to normalize new clinical interventions: 1) taking a patient approach; 2) gaining staff buy-in and ownership; and 3) conducting ongoing measurement of progress towards normalization.

Conclusions

The results offer valuable insight into the indicators that signify when a novel clinical practice becomes normalized, and the strategies employed to facilitate this transition. These findings can inform future research to develop instruments that implementation leaders can use to systematically measure the clinical change process.

Effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial of Spanish language, digital cognitive-behavioral therapy (dCBT) intervention for depression and anxiety - protocol for the SUPERA (SUpport from PEeRs to expand Access) study

BACKGROUND

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Latinxs experience a longer duration of untreated depression and anxiety. LEP Latinxs have difficulty accessing mental healthcare due to insufficient Spanish-speaking behavioral/mental health clinicians to meet demand. These under-resourced healthcare systems are less likely to be the site for the implementation of innovations. Digital interventions can provide an effective option for overcoming these barriers; yet, when digital evidence-based treatments are available, uptake and engagement is often low. This manuscript presents the protocol for the SUPERA (SUpport from PEeRs to expand Access) study which will evaluate the implementation of an evidence-based, Spanish language, digital cognitive-behavioral therapy (dCBT) intervention (i.e., SilverCloud) in safety-net primary care clinics for LEP Latinx patients with depression or anxiety.

METHODS

We will conduct an effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial (Type 2) design comparing engagement and clinical outcomes in two modalities of dCBT delivery (peer-supported vs. unsupported). We will also compare provider-level outreach (using a clinic patient registry) versus inreach (traditional provider referral) to compare rates of initiation, completion, and cost. Participants will be 426 LEP Latinx adults ≥18 years of age, PHQ-9 ≥ 10 or GAD-7 ≥ 8, with access to the internet via smartphone, and not currently receiving individual psychotherapy. We will collect baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks), and follow up (3 months) data.

CONCLUSION

The long-term goal of this research is to aid in the implementation of digital mental health interventions that can be sustainably implemented in low-resourced settings, while reducing the reliance on professionals, overcoming workforce deficits, and increasing relevance for diverse populations.

Community and Healthcare Perspectives on Implementing Hypertension Interventions for a Multiethnic Safety-Net Population

Objective

To synthesize community and healthcare informants' perspectives on contextual considerations and tailoring recommendations for high-quality, sustainable implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for managing hypertension (HTN) in a multiethnic safety-net population.

Design

Structured focus-group discussions and semistructured qualitative interviews.

Background

High-quality, sustainable implementation of HTN-related EBPs can promote equitable care. Implementation challenges extend beyond individual patients to span multiple levels of context. Few studies have systematically engaged community and healthcare perspectives to inform the design of HTN intervention trials.

Setting

A large safety-net healthcare system.

Participants/Methods

We conducted four structured discussions with each of five race- or ethnicity-specific community action boards (CABs) to understand community members' HTN-related norms, assets, needs, and experiences across local healthcare systems. We interviewed 41 personnel with diverse roles in our partnered healthcare system to understand the system's HTN-related strengths and needs. We solicited EBP tailoring recommendations from both groups. We summarized the findings using rapid content analysis.

Results

Participants identified contextual considerations spanning seven themes: social determinants, healthcare engagement, clinical interaction, system operations, standardization, patient education, and partnerships and funding. They offered tailoring recommendations spanning nine themes: addressing complex contexts, addressing social needs, system operations, healthcare system training and resources, linguistic and cultural tailoring, behavioral engagement, relational engagement, illness-course engagement, and community partnerships.

Conclusions

Engaging community and healthcare informants can ground implementation in the policy, community, healthcare system, clinical, and interpersonal contexts surrounding diverse patients at risk for disparities. Such grounding can reframe inequitable implementation as a multilevel social problem facing communities and healthcare systems, rather than individuals.

Fostering Patient-Centered Equitable Care in Radiology: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Patient-centered care (PCC) and equity are two of the six core domains of quality health care, according to the Institute of Medicine. Exceptional imaging care requires radiology practices to provide patient-centered (i.e., respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values) and equitable (i.e., does not vary in quality on the basis of gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status) care. Specific barriers that prevent the delivery of patient-centered equitable care include information gaps, breaches of trust, organizational medical culture, and financial incentives. Information gaps limit practitioners in understanding the lived experience of patients. Breaches of trust prevent patients from seeking needed medical care. Organizational medical cultures may not be centered around patient experiences. Financial incentives can impede practitioners' ability to spend the time and resources required to meet patient goals and needs. Intentional approaches that integrate core principles in both PCC and health equity are required to deliver high-quality patient-centered imaging care for diverse patient populations. The purpose of this AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review is to review the origins of the PCC movement in radiology, characterize connections between the PCC and health equity movements, and describe concrete examples of ways to foster patient-centered equitable care in radiology.

Care for Vulnerable Populations with Chronic Liver Disease: A Safety-Net Perspective

Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) and facilities are the cornerstone of healthcare services for the medically underserved. The burden of chronic liver disease-including end-stage manifestations of cirrhosis and liver cancer-is high and rising among populations living in poverty who primarily seek and receive care in safety-net settings. For many reasons related to social determinants of health, these individuals often present with delayed diagnoses and disease presentations, resulting in higher liver-related mortality. With recent state-based policy changes such as Medicaid expansion that impact access to insurance and critical health services, an overview of the body of literature on SNH care for chronic liver disease is timely and informative for the liver disease community. In this narrative review, we discuss controversies in the definition of a SNH and summarize the known disparities in the cascade of the care and management of common liver-related conditions: (1) steatotic liver disease, (2) liver cancer, (3) chronic viral hepatitis, and (4) cirrhosis and liver transplantation. In addition, we review the specific impact of Medicaid expansion on safety-net systems and liver disease outcomes and highlight effective provider- and system-level interventions. Lastly, we address remaining gaps and challenges to optimizing care for vulnerable populations with chronic liver disease in safety-net settings.

Substance Use Disorder Program Availability in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals in the US

Importance

Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) are ideal sites to deliver addiction treatment to patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), but the availability of these services within SNHs nationwide remains unknown.

Objective

To examine differences in the delivery of different SUD programs in SNHs vs non-SNHs across the US and to determine whether these differences are increased in certain types of SNHs depending on ownership.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis used data from the 2021 American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals to examine the associations of safety-net status and ownership with the availability of SUD services at acute care hospitals in the US. Data analysis was performed from January to March 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

This study used 2 survey questions from the American Hospital Association survey to determine the delivery of 5 hospital-based SUD services: screening, consultation, inpatient treatment services, outpatient treatment services, and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Results

A total of 2846 hospitals were included: 409 were SNHs and 2437 were non-SNHs. The lowest proportion of hospitals reported offering inpatient treatment services (791 hospitals [27%]), followed by MOUD (1055 hospitals [37%]), and outpatient treatment services (1087 hospitals [38%]). The majority of hospitals reported offering consultation (1704 hospitals [60%]) and screening (2240 hospitals [79%]). In multivariable models, SNHs were significantly less likely to offer SUD services across all 5 categories of services (screening odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.48-0.76]; consultation OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.83]; inpatient services OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; outpatient services OR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59-0.99]; MOUD OR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.46-0.78]). With the exception of MOUD, public or for-profit SNHs did not differ significantly from their non-SNH counterparts. However, nonprofit SNHs were significantly less likely to offer all 5 SUD services compared with their non-SNH counterparts (screening OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41-0.66]; consultation OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44-0.73]; inpatient services OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33-0.61]; outpatient services OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; MOUD OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.46-0.79]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of SNHs and non-SNHs, SNHs had significantly lower odds of offering the full range of SUD services. These findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that SNHs may face additional barriers to offering SUD programs. Further research is needed to understand these barriers and to identify strategies that support the adoption of evidence-based SUD programs in SNH settings.

Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine implementation in a large safety net health system

Objectives

To evaluate rapid COVID-19 vaccine clinic implementation from January-April 2021 in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDHS), the second-largest US safety net health system. During initial vaccine clinic implementation, LACDHS vaccinated 59,898 outpatients, 69% of whom were Latinx (exceeding the LA County Latinx population of 46%). LACDHS is a unique safety net setting to evaluate rapid vaccine implementation due to system size, geographic breadth, language/racial/ethnic diversity, limited health staffing resources, and socioeconomic complexity of patients.

Methods

Implementation factors were assessed through semi-structured interviews of staff from all twelve LACDHS vaccine clinics from August-November 2021 using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and themes analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis.

Results

Of 40 potential participants, 25 health professionals completed an interview (27% clinical providers/medical directors, 23% pharmacist, 15% nursing staff, and 35% other). Qualitative analysis of participant interviews yielded ten narrative themes. Implementation facilitators included bidirectional communication between system leadership and clinics, multidisciplinary leadership and operations teams, expanded use of standing orders, teamwork culture, use of active and passive communication structures, and development of patient-centered engagement strategies. Barriers to implementation included vaccine scarcity, underestimation of resources needed for patient outreach, and numerous process challenges encountered.

Conclusion

Previous studies focused on robust advance planning as a facilitator and understaffing and high staff turnover as barriers to implementation in safety net health systems. This study found facilitators that can mitigate lack of advance planning and staffing challenges present during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The ten identified themes may inform future implementations in safety net health systems.

Implementing Social Risk Screening and Referral to Resources in the NICU

OBJECTIVE

Social risk screening is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, but this practice is underutilized in NICUs. To address this gap in social care, we aimed to increase rates of: (1) systematic social risk screening and (2) connection with community resources, each to ≥50% over a 14-month period.

METHODS

We conducted a quality improvement initiative from November 2020 to January 2022. We adapted a screening tool and used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to integrate screening and referral to resources into clinical workflow. Primary outcome measures included the percentage of (1) families screened and (2) connection with resources. We examined screening by maternal race/ethnicity and primary language. Process measures were (1) time from admission to screening and (2) percentage of referrals provided to families reporting unmet needs and requesting assistance. We used statistical process control to assess change over time and χ2 tests to compare screening by race/ethnicity and language.

RESULTS

The rates of systematic screening increased from 0% to 49%. Among 103 families screened, 84% had ≥1, and 64% had ≥2 unmet needs, with a total of 221 needs reported. Education, employment, transportation, and food were the most common needs. Screening rates did not vary by race/ethnicity or language. Among families requesting assistance, 98% received referrals. The iterative improvement of a written resource guide and community partnerships led to increased rates of connection with resources from 21% to 52%.

CONCLUSION

Leveraging existing staff, our social risk screening and referral intervention built the capacity to address the high burden of unmet needs among NICU families.

Tell-a provider about tele: Reducing overuse of telemetry across 10 hospitals in a safety net system

BACKGROUND

Telemetry is often a scarce resource at hospitals and is important for arrhythmia and myocardial ischemia detection. Overuse of telemetry monitoring leads to alarm fatigue resulting in failure to respond to arrhythmias, patient harm, and possible unnecessary testing.

METHODS

This quality improvement initiative was implemented across NYC Health and Hospitals, an 11-hospital urban safety net system. The electronic health record intervention involved the addition of a mandatory indication in the telemetry order and a best practice advisory (BPA) that would fire after the recommended time period for reassessment had passed.

RESULTS

The average telemetry hours per patient encounter went from 60.1 preintervention to 48.4 postintervention, a 19.5% reduction (p < .001). When stratified by the 11 hospitals, decreases ranged from 9% to 30%. The BPA had a 53% accept rate and fired 52,682 times, with 27,938 "discontinue telemetry" orders placed. The true accept rate was 50.4%, as there was a 2.6% 24-h reorder rate. There was variation based on clinician specialty and clinician type (attending, fellow, resident, physician associate, nurse practitioner).

CONCLUSION

We successfully reduced telemetry monitoring across a multisite safety net system using solely an electronic health record (EHR) intervention. This expands on previous telemetry monitoring reduction initiatives using EHR interventions at single academic sites. Further study is needed to investigate variation across clinician type, specialty, and post-acute sites.