Implementation opportunities and challenges identified by key stakeholders in scaling up HIV Treatment as Prevention in British Columbia, Canada: a qualitative study

Perspectives From Community-Based HIV Service Organization Leaders on Priorities in Serving Sexual and Gender Minority Populations

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations experience discrimination and care-related barriers when seeking appropriate sexual health services. Using rapid assessment procedures we conducted site visits with 11 community-based HIV service agencies to identify priorities, assets, and needs related to serving SGM clients and assessed the alignment of these services with the city's local Ending the HIV Epidemic plan. We identified and mapped themes across agencies into the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains of inner and outer settings: client-facing materials; priorities in serving SGM communities; SGM policies and protocols; collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data; training and education; and funding and scope of programs. Rapid assessment procedures can accelerate the collection and interpretation of data to help public health institutions and community partners make timely adaptations when implementing comprehensive and culturally humble sexual health services for SGM communities.

Assessing drivers of implementing "Scaling-up the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach" for Prevention of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission in Mozambique (SAIA-SCALE) over implementation waves

BACKGROUND

The Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) is an evidence-based package of systems engineering tools originally designed to improve patient flow through the prevention of Mother-to-Child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) cascade. SAIA is a potentially scalable model for maximizing the benefits of universal antiretroviral therapy (ART) for mothers and their babies. SAIA-SCALE was a stepped wedge trial implemented in Manica Province, Mozambique, to evaluate SAIA's effectiveness when led by district health managers, rather than by study nurses. We present the results of a qualitative assessment of implementation determinants of the SAIA-SCALE strategy during two intensive and one maintenance phases.

METHODS

We used an extended case study design that embedded the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide data collection, analysis, and interpretation. From March 2019 to April 2020, we conducted in-depth individual interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with district managers, health facility maternal and child health (MCH) managers, and frontline nurses at 21 health facilities and seven districts of Manica Province (Chimoio, Báruè, Gondola, Macate, Manica, Sussundenga, and Vanduzi).

RESULTS

We included 85 participants: 50 through IDIs and 35 from three FGDs. Most study participants were women (98%), frontline nurses (49.4%), and MCH health facility managers (32.5%). An identified facilitator of successful intervention implementation (regardless of intervention phase) was related to SAIA's compatibility with organizational structures, processes, and priorities of Mozambique's health system at the district and health facility levels. Identified barriers to successful implementation included (a) inadequate health facility and road infrastructure preventing mothers from accessing MCH/PMTCT services at study health facilities and preventing nurses from dedicating time to improving service provision, and (b) challenges in managing intervention funds.

CONCLUSIONS

The SAIA-SCALE qualitative evaluation suggests that the scalability of SAIA for PMTCT is enhanced by its fit within organizational structures, processes, and priorities at the primary level of healthcare delivery and health system management in Mozambique. Barriers to implementation that impact the scalability of SAIA include district-level financial management capabilities and lack of infrastructure at the health facility level. SAIA cannot be successfully scaled up to adequately address PMTCT needs without leveraging central-level resources and priorities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03425136 . Registered on 02/06/2018.

Implementation of mandatory opioid prescribing limits in North Carolina: healthcare administrator and prescriber perspectives

BACKGROUND

Recent increases in state laws to reduce opioid prescribing have demonstrated a need to understand how they are interpreted and implemented in healthcare systems. The purpose of this study was to explore the systems, strategies, and resources that hospital administrators and prescribers used to implement the 2017 North Carolina Strengthen Opioid Prevention (STOP) Act opioid prescribing limits, which limited initial prescriptions to a five (for acute) or seven (for post-surgical) days' supply.

METHODS

We interviewed 14 hospital administrators and 38 prescribers with degrees in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, business administration and public health working across North Carolina. Interview guides, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, explored barriers and facilitators to implementation. Interview topics included communication, resources, and hospital system support. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then analyzed using flexible coding, integrating inductive and deductive coding, to inform analytic code development and identify themes.

RESULTS

We identified three main themes around implementation of STOP act mandated prescribing limits: organizational communication, prescriber education, and changes in the electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Administrators reflected on implementation in the context of raising awareness and providing reminders to facilitate changes in prescriber behavior, operationalized through email and in-person communications as well as dedicated resources to EMR changes. Prescribers noted administrative communications about prescribing limits often focused on legality, suggesting a directive of the organization's policy rather than a passive reminder. Prescribers expressed a desire for more spaces to have their questions answered and resources for patient communications. While hospital administrators viewed compliance with the law as a priority, prescribers reflected on concerns for adequately managing their patients' pain and limited time for clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital administrators and prescribers approached implementation of the STOP act prescribing limits with different mindsets. While administrators were focused on policy compliance, prescribers were focused on their patients' needs. Strategies to implement the mandate then had to balance patient needs with policy compliance. As states continue to legislate to prevent opioid overdose deaths, understanding how laws are implemented by healthcare systems and prescribers will improve their effectiveness through tailoring and maximizing available resources.