Using Practice Facilitation to Increase Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers, North Carolina, 2012-2013: Feasibility, Facilitators, and Barriers

Implementation of a Secure Firearm Storage Program in Pediatric Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Importance

Increased secure firearm storage can reduce youth firearm injury and mortality, a leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the US. Despite the availability of evidence-based secure firearm storage programs and recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, few pediatric clinicians report routinely implementing these programs.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR) documentation template (nudge) and the nudge plus facilitation (ie, clinic support to implement the program; nudge+) at promoting delivery of a brief evidence-based secure firearm storage program (SAFE Firearm) that includes counseling about secure firearm storage and free cable locks during all pediatric well visits.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Adolescent and Child Suicide Prevention in Routine Clinical Encounters (ASPIRE) unblinded parallel cluster randomized effectiveness-implementation trial was conducted from March 14, 2022, to March 20, 2023, to test the hypothesis that, relative to nudge, nudge+ would result in delivery of the firearm storage program to an additional 10% or more of the eligible population, and that this difference would be statistically significant. Thirty pediatric primary care clinics in 2 US health care systems (in Michigan and Colorado) were included, excluding clinics that were not the primary site for participating health care professionals and a subset selected at random due to resource limitations. All pediatric well visits at participating clinics for youth ages 5 to 17 years were analyzed.

Interventions

Clinics were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the nudge or nudge+.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient-level outcomes were modeled to estimate the primary outcome, reach, which is a visit-level binary indicator of whether the parent received both components of the firearm storage program (counseling and lock), as documented by the clinician in the EHR. Secondary outcomes explored individual program component delivery.

Results

A total of 47 307 well-child visits (median [IQR] age, 11.3 [8.1-14.4] years; 24 210 [51.2%] male and 23 091 [48.8%] female) among 46 597 children and 368 clinicians were eligible to receive the firearm storage program during the trial and were included in analyses. Using the intention-to-treat principle, a higher percentage of well-child visits received the firearm storage program in the nudge+ condition (49%; 95% CI, 37-61) compared to nudge (22%; 95% CI, 13-31).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the EHR strategy combined with facilitation (nudge+) was more effective at increasing delivery of an evidence-based secure firearm storage program compared to nudge alone.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04844021.

Remote coaching for supporting the implementation of treatment for depression in primary care in Madhya Pradesh, India: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Upwards of ninety percent of individuals living with depression in India do not have access to evidence-based treatments, especially in rural areas. Integrating these treatments into primary care is essential for bridging this care gap. This trial aims to evaluate whether a remote coaching implementation support strategy, referred to as Enhanced Implementation Support, is superior to routine support, referred to as Routine Implementation Support, in supporting the delivery of collaborative depression care in rural primary care centers.

Methods

Employing a cluster-randomized hybrid type-III implementation trial design, 14 primary care facilities in Sehore district, Madhya Pradesh, will implement a collaborative depression care package based on the WHO's mhGAP program. Facilities will be randomized to either Enhanced Implementation Support or the Routine Implementation Support control condition. Enhanced Implementation Support consists of remote coaching and technical assistance, supplemented with in-person visits, and guided by the Plan-Do-Study-Act implementation cycles. The primary implementation outcome is the proportion of outpatients screened for depression by facility staff, with secondary outcomes including the proportions of outpatients who screen positive for depression, are referred to the medical officer, and initiate treatment. Secondary patient outcomes include proportion of patients who achieve reduction in depression symptom severity at 3-month follow up. Acceptability, feasibility, and fidelity of the depression care package will be assessed through routine observations collected during field visits, facility audits, and qualitative exit interviews with facility staff. Costs of delivering the Enhanced Implementation Support strategy will also be estimated.

Discussion

This trial can inform efforts to integrate depression care in rural primary care facilities in a low-resource setting, and illuminate whether external coaching support is superior relative to existing implementation support for achieving these goals.

Trial Registration

NCT05264792.

Integrating causal pathway diagrams into practice facilitation to address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death and the second most common cancer diagnosis among the Hispanic population in the United States. However, CRC screening prevalence remains lower among Hispanic adults than among non-Hispanic white adults. To reduce CRC screening disparities, efforts to implement CRC screening evidence-based interventions in primary care organizations (PCOs) must consider their potential effect on existing screening disparities. More research is needed to understand how to leverage existing implementation science methodologies to improve health disparities. The Coaching to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Equity (CoachIQ) pilot study explores whether integrating two implementation science tools, Causal Pathway Diagrams and practice facilitation, is a feasible and effective way to address CRC screening disparities among Hispanic patients.

METHODS

We used a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design to evaluate feasibility and assess initial signals of effectiveness of the CoachIQ approach. Three PCOs received coaching from CoachIQ practice facilitators over a 12-month period. Three non-equivalent comparison group PCOs received coaching during the same period as participants in a state quality improvement program. We conducted descriptive analyses of screening rates and coaching activities.

RESULTS

The CoachIQ practice facilitators discussed equity, facilitated prioritization of QI activities, and reviewed CRC screening disparities during a higher proportion of coaching encounters than the comparison group practice facilitator. While the mean overall CRC screening rate in the comparison PCOs increased from 34 to 41%, the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients did not increase from 30%. In contrast, the mean overall CRC screening rate at the CoachIQ PCOs increased from 41 to 44%, and the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients increased from 35 to 39%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CoachIQ program merges two implementation science methodologies, practice facilitation and causal pathway diagrams, to help PCOs focus quality improvement efforts on improving CRC screening while also reducing screening disparities. Results from this pilot study demonstrate key differences between CoachIQ facilitation and standard facilitation, and point to the potential of the CoachIQ approach to decrease disparities in CRC screening.

Implementing practice facilitation in research: how facilitators spend their time guiding practices to improve blood pressure control

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitators (PFs) coach practices through quality improvement (QI) initiatives aimed at enhancing patient outcomes and operational efficiencies. Practice facilitation is a dynamic intervention that, by design, is tailored to practices' unique needs and contexts. Little research has explored the amount of time PFs spend with practices on QI activities. This short report expands on previously published work that detailed a 12-month practice facilitation intervention as part of the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control (SEC) trial, which focused on improving hypertension control among people living in rural settings in the southeastern USA. This report analyzes data on the time PFs spent to guide 32 primary care practices in implementing QI activities to support enhanced outcomes in patients with high blood pressure.

METHODS

The SEC trial employed four certified PFs across all practice sites, who documented time spent: (1) driving to support practices; (2) working on-site with staff and clinicians; and (3) communicating remotely (phone, email, or video conference) with practice members. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics to help understand time devoted to individual and aggregated tasks. Additionally, we explored correlations between practice characteristics and time spent with PFs.

RESULTS

In aggregate, the PFs completed 416 visits to practices and spent an average of 130 (SD 65) min per visit driving to and from practices. The average time spent on-site per visit with practices was 87 (SD 37) min, while an average of 17 (SD 12) min was spent on individual remote communications. During the 12-month intervention, 1131 remote communications were conducted with practices. PFs spent most of their time with clinical staff members (n = 886 instances) or with practice managers alone (n = 670 instances) while relatively few on-site visits were conducted with primary care providers alone (n = 15). In 19 practices, no communications were solely with providers. No significant correlations were found between time spent on PF activities and a practices' percent of Medicaid and uninsured patients, staff-provider ratio, or federally qualified health center (FQHC) status.

CONCLUSIONS

PFs working with practices serving rural patients with hypertension devote substantial time to driving, highlighting the importance of optimizing a balance between time spent on-site vs. communicating remotely. Most time spent was with clinical staff, not primary care providers. These findings may be useful to researchers and business leaders who design, test, and implement efficient facilitation services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NIH ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02866669 . Registered on 15 August 2016. NHLBI AWARD number: PCS-1UH3HL130691.

'I'm a bit of a champion for it actually': qualitative insights into practitioner-supported self-collection cervical screening among early adopting Victorian practitioners in Australia

BACKGROUND

Self-collection for cervical screening has been available in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program since 2017 and is now available to all people as an option for cervical screening through a practitioner-supported model. Documenting early adopting practitioner experiences with self-collection as a mechanism to engage people in cervical screening is crucial to informing its continuing roll-out and implementation in other health systems.

AIM

This study aimed to describe the experiences of practitioners in Victoria, Australia, who used human papillomavirus (HPV)-based self-collection cervical screening during the first 17 months of its availability.

METHODS

Interviews (n = 18) with practitioners from Victoria, who offered self-collection to their patients between December 2017 and April 2019, analysed using template analysis.

FINDINGS

Practitioners were overwhelmingly supportive of self-collection cervical screening because it was acceptable to their patients and addressed patients' barriers to screening. Practitioners perceived that knowledge and awareness of self-collection were variable among the primary care workforce, with some viewing self-collection to be inferior to clinician-collected screening. Practitioners championed self-collection at an individual level, with the extent of practice-level implementation depending on resourcing. Concerns regarding supporting the follow-up of self-collected HPV positive patients were noted. Other practical barriers included gaining timely, accurate screening histories from the National Cancer Screening Register to assess eligibility. Practitioners' role surrounded facilitating the choice between screening tests through a patient-centred approach.

Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe-protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies

BACKGROUND

With a high mortality of 12.6% of all cancer cases, colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for substantial burden of disease in Europe. In the past decade, more and more countries have introduced organized colorectal cancer screening programs, making systematic screening available to entire segments of a population, typically based on routine stool tests and/or colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of organized screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality has been confirmed, studies continuously report persistent program implementation challenges. This systematic review will synthesize the literature on organized CRC screening programs. Its aim is to understand what is currently known about the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these programs and about the implementation strategies used to navigate these determinants.

METHODS

A systematic review of primary studies of any research design will be conducted. CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus will be searched. Websites of (non-)government health care organizations and websites of organizations affiliated with authors of included studies will be screened for unpublished evaluation reports. Existing organized CRC screening programs will be contacted with a request to share program-specific grey literature. Two researchers will independently screen each publication in two rounds for eligibility. Included studies will focus on adult populations involved in the implementation of organized CRC screening programs and contain information about implementation determinants/ strategies. Publications will be assessed for their risk of bias. Data extraction will include study aim, design, location, setting, sample, methods, and measures; program characteristics; implementation stage, framework, determinants, strategies, and outcomes; and service and other outcome information. Findings will be synthesized narratively using the three stages of thematic synthesis.

DISCUSSION

With its sole focus on the implementation of organized CRC screening programs, this review will help to fill a central knowledge gap in the literature on colorectal cancer screening. Its findings can inform the decision-making in policy and practice needed to prioritize resources for establishing new and maintaining existing programs in the future.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42022306580).

Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are disproportionately high among rural residents despite the availability of effective screening methods. Outreach activities can improve CRC screening rates but rely on accurate identification of patients due for screening. We report on data challenges in rural clinics and Medicaid health plans in Oregon in identifying patients eligible for CRC screening, in a large project implementing mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and patient navigation.

METHODS

We analyzed data from clinic intake surveys and administrative claims. Clinics were asked to identify total population numbers relevant to CRC screening and follow-up. Health plans also identified enrollees eligible for CRC screening in Spring, 2021. Clinic staff validated patient lists for eligibility using their electronic health records (EHR).

RESULTS

EHR features varied across the 29 participating and 28 responding clinics. Among the 28 responding clinics, 21 were able to report their Medicaid population (75%), 19 reported the number of patients aged 50 to 75 (68%) and the number screened for CRC in the last year (68%). Only 8 (29%) were able to report screening details such as number screened by FIT and 9 were able to report on patients with an abnormal FIT or colonoscopy completed after FIT (32%). Health plans had challenges properly identifying where enrollees received care and had missing data for race and ethnicity (range 22 to 34% unknown race, <1% to 24% unknown ethnicity).

DISCUSSION

Most participating rural primary care clinics and Medicaid health plans experienced challenges identifying the population due for a CRC screening outreach program. Better EHR functionality and data reporting capabilities could help rural clinics apply population-based strategies and ultimately attenuate disparities in cancer screening and follow-up.

Awareness and knowledge of Colorectal Cancer Screening among Latinos in Omaha, Nebraska

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low in Latino communities. We sought to determine the screening awareness and attitudes in Omaha, Nebraska.

METHODS

We interviewed 150 Latinos at an urban Federally Qualified Health Center, June-October 2017. Chi-square or Fisher-exact tests and multiple logistic regression models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Participants reported low educational attainment, low income, and limited access to insurance or a primary provider. Less than one-third of participants aged 50 + had ever heard of FOBT (32.6%) or colonoscopy (30.4%). For individuals 50+, access to a primary care provider (p = .03) and knowing the screening initiation age (p = .03) were associated with ever having a colonoscopy. Higher knowledge score was a strong predictor of any CRC screening.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge predicted screening, suggesting interventions should aim to educate this population regarding CRC screening guidelines and options and work with stakeholders to make CRC screening more accessible.

Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) initiatives often reflect approaches based on anecdotal evidence, but it is unclear how initiatives can best incorporate scientific literature and methods into the QI process. Review of studies of QI initiatives that aim to systematically incorporate evidence review (termed evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI)) may provide a basis for further methodological development.

METHODS

In this scoping review (registration: https://osf.io/hr5bj ) of EBQI, we searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. The review addressed three central questions: How is EBQI defined? How is evidence used to inform evidence-informed QI initiatives? What is the effectiveness of EBQI?

RESULTS

We identified 211 publications meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 170 publications explicitly used the term "EBQI." Published definitions emphasized relying on evidence throughout the QI process. We reviewed a subset of 67 evaluations of QI initiatives in primary care, including both studies that used the term "EBQI" with those that described an evidence-based initiative without using EBQI terminology. The most frequently reported EBQI components included use of evidence to identify previously tested effective QI interventions; engaging stakeholders; iterative intervention development; partnering with frontline clinicians; and data-driven evaluation of the QI intervention. Effectiveness estimates were positive but varied in size in ten studies that provided data on patient health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

EBQI is a promising strategy for integrating relevant prior scientific findings and methods systematically in the QI process, from the initial developmental phase of the IQ initiative through to its evaluation. Future QI researchers and practitioners can use these findings as the basis for further development of QI initiatives.

Health care system factors influencing primary healthcare workers' engagement in national cancer screening programs: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore factors across the environment, organisation and care team levels of the health care system that influence the engagement of primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) in Australia's national cancer screening programs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with PHCWs - general practitioners (n=10), practices nurses (n=10), and practice managers (n=10) from settings across Australia. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework Method.

RESULTS

Two environment-level factors were found to influence several organisation and care team level factors. Firstly, the financial structure of primary health care, impacting on practitioner: time, practice culture, screening knowledge and opportunistic conversations. Secondly, the structure of screening programs had flow-on effects for: access to patient screening records, recall and reminder systems, and sense of program ownership.

CONCLUSIONS

Encouraging more effective PHCW engagement in the screening programs requires the consideration and mitigation of overarching financial and structural barriers. Up-to-date and easy-to-use recall and reminder systems, whole-of-practice approaches which optimise the role of each PHCW and the identification of a 'champion' to drive implementation should be considered.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

This study offers insights into what elements practice and practitioner targeted initiatives in Australia should incorporate, potentially leading to improved engagement of PHCWs and increased cancer screening participation rates.

Community Health Centers' Performance in Cancer Screening and Prevention

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about what clinic-level factors differentiate community health centers that achieve high performance on cancer-preventive care metrics. This study aims to describe the longitudinal trends in the delivery of 3 cancer-preventive care metrics (cervical and colorectal cancer screenings and tobacco-cessation intervention) and define and compare community health centers with high cancer-preventive care performance with those with low cancer-preventive care performance.

METHODS

This observational study used 2012-2019 community health center data (N=933) from the Uniform Data System. High/low performance was based on Healthy People 2020 targets and sample distribution. For each cancer-preventive care metric, the percentage of community health centers that met high (≥70.5% at cervical or colorectal cancer screening or >80% tobacco-cessation intervention) and low thresholds at 1, 2, and all the 3 screenings was estimated. Multivariable generalized estimating equations logistic regression modeling was used to assess the community health center‒level factors associated with screening performance.

RESULTS

The community health centers' performance for tobacco-cessation intervention remained at ≥80%, with a small increase over time. Performance for cervical cancer screening remained unchanged with about 50% of patients screened. Colorectal cancer screening performance increased from around 30% in 2012 to 44% in 2019. Very few community health centers reached high performance (3%) in all the 3 indicators, and 13% of community health centers were high in any 2 of the outcomes in 2019. Higher patient volume, a greater proportion of Hispanic patients, fewer uninsured patients, and community health centers located in the Northeast region were associated with high performance in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Very few community health centers meet all Healthy People 2020 goals in cancer screenings and may struggle to achieve the 2030 goals. Very few indicators differentiated high performers from low performers.

A Lung Cancer Screening Education Program Impacts both Referral Rates and Provider and Medical Assistant Knowledge at Two Federally Qualified Health Centers

BACKGROUND

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve minority and low-socioeconomic populations and provide care to high-risk smokers. These centers frequently experience barriers, including low provider and medical assistant (MA) knowledge around lung cancer screening (LCS). Subsequent low LCS referral rates by providers at FQHCs limit utilization of LCS in eligible, high-risk, underserved patients.

METHODS

Providers and MAs from two FQHCs participated in a LCS educational session. A pre-educational survey was administered at the start of the session and a post-educational survey at the end. The intervention included a presentation with education around non-small cell lung cancer, LCS, tobacco cessation, and shared-decision making. Both surveys were used to evaluate changes in provider and MA ability to determine eligible patients for LCS. The Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction was used to measure the impact.

RESULTS

A total of 29 providers and 28 MAs enrolled in the study from two FQHCs. There was an improvement, P < .009 and P < .015 respectively, in provider and MA confidence in identifying patients for LCS. Additionally, one year prior to the program, 9 low-dose computed tomography (LDCTs) were ordered at one of the FQHCs and 0 at the other. After the program, over 100 LDCTs were ordered at each FQHC.

CONCLUSIONS

A targeted LCS educational program improves provider and MAs' ability to identify eligible LCS patients and is associated with an increase in the number of patients referred to LDCT at FQHCs.

Impact of COVID-19 on Screening Rates for Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancer: Practice Feedback From a Quality Improvement Project in Primary Care

PURPOSE

Three New York State practice-based research networks provided quality improvement strategies to improve screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal (BCC) cancers in safety-net primary care, over 7 years. In the final year (Y7), the United States experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on BCC cancer screening rates was assessed qualitatively.

METHODS

A total of 12 primary care practices participated in Y7 of the quality improvement project. BCC cancer screening rates at year beginning and end were assessed. Practice staff were asked about how COVID-19 impacted screening. Average pre/postintervention screening rates and qualitative thematic analysis regarding how COVID-19 impacted cancer screening were ascertained.

RESULTS

In Y7, there was an increase in breast cancer and a decrease in colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates compared to the previous project year. Many practices were able to continue pre-COVID-19 cancer screening processes. Overall, practices reported loss of staff, changes in data entry, and a shift from preventive screening to care of sick patients. Telehealth was vital for practices to continue serving patients but had a less positive impact on patients with financial/technological disadvantages. BCC cancer screenings were impacted at various levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted primary care practice cancer screening; however, some practices were able to mitigate effects by shifting focus to processes supporting screening outside of in-person office visits.

Increasing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screenings: A Qualitative Assessment of Barriers and Promoters in Safety-Net Practices

PURPOSE

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal in underserved populations. A 7-year quality improvement (QI) project implemented academic detailing and practice facilitation in safety-net primary care practices to increase cancer screening rates. This manuscript assesses barriers and promoters.

METHODS

Primary care practices providing care to underserved patients were recruited in New York cities Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Enrollment totaled 31 practices, with 12 practices participating throughout. Annually, each practice received 6 months of practice facilitation support for development and implementation of evidence-based interventions to increase screening rates for the three cancer types. At the end of each practice facilitation period, focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with participating personnel. Content analysis was performed annually to identify barriers and promoters. A comprehensive final analysis was performed at project end.

RESULTS

Barriers included system-level (inconsistent communication with specialists, electronic health record system transitions, ownership changes) and practice-level challenges (staff turnover, inconsistent data entry, QI fatigue) that compound patient-level challenges of transportation, cost, and health literacy. Cyclical barriers like staff turnover returned despite attempts to resolve them, while successful implementation was promoted by reducing patients' structural barriers, adapting interventions to existing practice priorities, and enacting officewide policies. During the QI project, practices became aware of the impact of social determinants of health on patients' screening decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The project's longitudinal design enabled identification of key barriers that reduced accuracy of practices' screening rates and increased risk of patients falling through the cracks. Identified promoters can help sustain interventions to increase screenings.

Improving Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care via Practice Facilitation and Academic Detailing: A Multi-PBRN Quality Improvement Project

PURPOSE

In the United States, cancer screening rates are often below national targets. This project implemented practice facilitation and academic detailing aimed at increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates in safety-net primary care practices.

METHODS

Three practice-based research networks across western and central New York State partnered to provide quality improvement strategies on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Pre/postintervention screening rates for all participating practices were collected annually, as were means across all practices over 7 years. Simple ordinary least squares linear regression was used to calculate the trend for each cancer type and test for statistical significance (ie, P≤0.05), using the ordinal time point as a fixed effect.

RESULTS

An overall increase in mean screening rates was seen over the duration of this project for colorectal (24.6% preintervention to 48.0% in year 7 of intervention; P<0.001) and breast cancer (37.0% preintervention to 48.6% in year 7; P=0.460). Mean cervical cancer screening rates decreased (35.5% preintervention to 31.4% in year 7; P=0.209). Success in increasing screening rates varied across regions of New York State.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice facilitation and academic detailing were successful in significantly increasing, on average, colorectal cancer screening rate. Cervical cancer screening showed an overall decrease, likely due to difficulties for primary care practices in tracking and implementation, as many patients seek this service at outside gynecology facilities. Regional differences, guideline changes, and practice reorganization each may have played a part in observed trends. A standardization of queries being used to pull screening rates is an important step in increasing the reliability of these data.

Two Medicaid health plans' models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates

Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain low, especially among certain populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) outreach initiated by U.S. health plans could reach underserved individuals, while solving CRC screening data and implementation challenges faced by health clinics. We report the models and motivations of two health insurance plans implementing a mailed FIT program for age-eligible U.S. Medicaid and Medicare populations. One health plan operates in a single state with ~220,000 enrollees; the other operates in multiple states with ~2 million enrollees. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and observed leadership and clinic staff planning during program development and implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach; coded interview reports and meeting minutes were iteratively reviewed and summarized for themes. Between June and September 2016, nine participants were identified, and all agreed to the interview. Interviews revealed that organizational context was important to both organizations and helped shape program design. Both organizations were hoping this program would address barriers to their prior CRC screening improvement efforts and saw CRC screening as a priority. Despite similar motivations to participate in a mailed FIT intervention, contextual features of the health plans led them to develop distinct implementation models: a collaborative model using some health clinic staffing versus a centralized model operationalizing outreach primarily at the health plan. Data are not yet available on the models' effectiveness. Our findings might help inform the design of programs to deliver mailed FIT outreach.

Does coaching matter? Examining the impact of specific practice facilitation strategies on implementation of quality improvement interventions in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland study

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitation is a multicomponent implementation strategy used to improve the capacity for practices to address care quality and implementation gaps. We sought to assess whether practice facilitators use of coaching strategies aimed at improving self-sufficiency were associated with improved implementation of quality improvement (QI) interventions in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland Study.

METHODS

We mapped 27 practice facilitation activities to a framework that classifies practice facilitation strategies by the degree to which the practice develops its own process expertise (Doing Tasks, Project Management, Consulting, Teaching, and Coaching) and then used regression tree analysis to group practices by facilitation strategies experienced. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess whether practice groups identified by regression tree analysis were associated with successful implementation of QI interventions and practice and study context variables.

RESULTS

There was no association between number of strategies performed by practice facilitators and number of QI interventions implemented. Regression tree analysis identified 4 distinct practice groups based on the number of Project Management and Coaching strategies performed. The median number of interventions increased across the groups. Practices receiving > 4 project management and > 6 coaching activities implemented a median of 17 of 35 interventions. Groups did not differ significantly by practice size, association with a healthcare network, or practice type. Statistically significant differences in practice location, number and duration of facilitator visits, and early study termination emerged among the groups, compared to the overall practice population.

CONCLUSIONS

Practices that engage in more coaching-based strategies with practice facilitators are more likely to implement more QI interventions, and practice receptivity to these strategies was not dependent on basic practice demographics.

An Exploratory Mixed Methods Study of Experiences of Interprofessional Teams Who Received Coaching to Simultaneously Redesign Primary Care Education and Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Coaching is emerging as a form of facilitation in health professions education. Most studies focus on one-on-one coaching rather than team coaching. We assessed the experiences of interprofessional teams coached to simultaneously improve primary care residency training and interprofessional practice.

METHODS

This three-year exploratory mixed methods study included transformational assistance from 9 interprofessional coaches, one assigned to each of 9 interprofessional primary care teams that included family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, nursing, pharmacy and behavioral health. Coaches interacted with teams during 2 in-person training sessions, an in-person site visit, and then as requested by their teams. Surveys administered at 1 year and end study assessed the coaching relationship and process.

RESULTS

The majority of participants (82% at end of Year 1 and 76.6% at end study) agreed or strongly agreed that their coach developed a positive working relationship with their team. Participants indicated coaches helped them: (1) develop as teams, (2) stay on task, and (3) respond to local context issues, with between 54.3% and 69.2% agreeing or strongly agreeing that their coaches were helpful in these areas. Cronbach's alpha for the 15 coaching survey items was 0.965. Challenges included aligning the coach's expertise with the team's needs.

CONCLUSIONS

While team coaching was well received by interprofessional teams of primary care professionals undertaking educational and clinical redesign, the 3 primary care disciplines have much to learn from each other regarding how to improve inter- and intra-professional collaborative practice among clinicians and staff as well as with interprofessional learners rotating through their outpatient clinics.

Factors Influencing Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Improvement Program in Community Health Centers: an Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based programs such as mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can only affect health outcomes if they can be successfully implemented. However, attempts to implement programs are often limited by organizational-level factors.

OBJECTIVES

As part of the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) pragmatic trial, we evaluated how organizational factors impacted the extent to which health centers implemented a mailed FIT outreach program.

DESIGN

Eight health centers participated in STOP CRC. The intervention consisted of customized electronic health record tools and clinical staff training to facilitate mailing of an introduction letter, FIT kit, and reminder letter. Health centers had flexibility in how they delivered the program.

MAIN MEASURES

We categorized the health centers' level of implementation based on the proportion of eligible patients who were mailed a FIT kit, and applied configurational comparative methods to identify combinations of relevant organizational-level and program-level factors that distinguished among high, medium, and low implementing health centers. The factors were categorized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research model.

KEY RESULTS

FIT tests were mailed to 21.0-81.7% of eligible participants at each health center. We identified a two-factor solution that distinguished among levels of implementation with 100% consistency and 100% coverage. The factors were having a centralized implementation team (inner setting) and mailing the introduction letter in advance of the FIT kit (intervention characteristics). Health centers with high levels of implementation had the joint presence of both factors. In health centers with medium levels of implementation, only one factor was present. Health centers with low levels of implementation had neither factor present.

CONCLUSIONS

Full implementation of the STOP CRC intervention relied on a centralized implementation team with dedicated staffing time, and the advance mailing of an introduction letter.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01742065 Registered 05 December 2012-Prospectively registered.

Fundamental social causes of inequalities in colorectal cancer mortality: A study of behavioral and medical mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Fundamental cause theory posits that social conditions strongly influence the risk of health risks. This study identifies risk mechanisms that social conditions associated with socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity shape in the production of colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality.

METHODS

Two large datasets in the United States examining behavioral and medical preventive factors (N = 4.63-million people) were merged with population-level mortality data observing 761,100 CRC deaths among 3.31-billion person-years of observation to examine trends in CRC mortality from 1999-2012. Analyses examined the changing role of medical preventions and health behaviors in catalyzing SES and racial/ethnic inequalities in CRC mortality.

RESULTS

Lower SES as well as Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American race/ethnicity were associated with decreased access to age-appropriate screening and/or increased prevalence of behavioral risk factors. Analyses further revealed that SES and racial/ethnic inequalities were partially determined by differences in engagement in two preventive factors: use of colonoscopy, and participation in physical activity.

DISCUSSION

Social inequalities were not completely determined by behavioral risk factors. Nevertheless, a more equitable distribution of preventive medicines has the potential to reduce both the risk of, and social inequalities in, CRC mortality.

Contrasting Perspectives of Practice Leaders and Practice Facilitators May Be Common in Quality Improvement Initiatives

Practice facilitation is an approach for advancing quality improvement (QI), but its success depends on effective relationships and communication among participants. Our goal was to identify patterns of contrasting perspectives on implementation issues between practice leaders and their practice facilitators, and factors that may contribute to them. We conducted individual interviews with practice leaders and the practice facilitators assigned to them as part of a program focused on preventive cardiology within primary care practices. We used summative content analysis to quantify the incidence of contrasting perspectives, and bivariate and qualitative analyses to explore relationships between contrasting perspectives and contextual factors. Among the 16 dyads, contrasting perspectives commonly related to the easiest or hardest QI interventions to implement (8 of 16 dyads) and the practice's success implementing interventions (5 of 16 dyads). There was a nonsignificant, inverse correlation (r = -0.19, p = .47) between the number of in-person QI visits from the facilitator and the total number of contrasting perspectives. Turnover of staff was frequently reported in dyads with contrasting perspectives. Although the impact of contrasting perspectives warrants additional study, planners of QI initiatives using practice facilitation should consider taking steps to minimize contrasting perspectives, or the potential adverse consequences of them, by addressing turnover challenges and encouraging opportunities to share perspectives.

Does increased implementation support improve community clinics' guideline-concordant care? Results of a mixed methods, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial

Background

Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs).

Methods

This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs’ EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes.

Results

Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes.

Conclusions

Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics’ ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Understanding quality improvement collaboratives through an implementation science lens

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have long been used to facilitate group learning and implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in healthcare. However, few studies systematically describe implementation strategies linked to QIC success. To address this gap, we evaluated a QIC on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) by aligning standardized implementation strategies with collaborative activities and measuring implementation and effectiveness outcomes. In 2018, the American Cancer Society and North Carolina Community Health Center Association provided funding, in-person/virtual training, facilitation, and audit and feedback with the goal of building FQHC capacity to enact selected implementation strategies. The QIC evaluation plan included a pre-test/post-test single group design and mixed methods data collection. We assessed: 1) adoption, 2) engagement, 3) implementation of QI tools and CRC screening EBIs, and 4) changes in CRC screening rates. A post-collaborative focus group captured participants' perceptions of implementation strategies. Twenty-three percent of North Carolina FQHCs (9/40) participated in the collaborative. Health Center engagement was high although individual participation decreased over time. Teams completed all four QIC tools: aim statements, process maps, gap and root cause analysis, and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. FQHCs increased their uptake of evidence-based CRC screening interventions and rates increased 8.0% between 2017 and 2018. Focus group findings provided insights into participants' opinions regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of the implementation strategies and how they influenced outcomes. Results support the collaborative's positive impact on FQHC capacity to implement QI tools and EBIs to improve CRC screening rates.

Practice Facilitators' and Leaders' Perspectives on a Facilitated Quality Improvement Program

PURPOSE

Practice facilitation is a promising approach to helping practices implement quality improvements. Our purpose was to describe practice facilitators' and practice leaders' perspectives on implementation of a practice facilitator-supported quality improvement program and describe where their perspectives aligned and diverged.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with practice leaders and practice facilitators who participated in a program that included 35 improvement strategies aimed at the ABCS of heart health (aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation). Rapid qualitative analysis was used to collect, organize, and analyze the data.

RESULTS

We interviewed 17 of the 33 eligible practice leaders, and the 10 practice facilitators assigned to those practices. Practice leaders and practice facilitators both reported value in the program's ability to bring needed, high-quality resources to practices. Practice leaders appreciated being able to set the schedule for facilitation and select among the 35 interventions. According to practice facilitators, however, relying on practice leaders to set the pace of the intervention resulted in a lower level of program intensity than intended. Practice leaders preferred targeted assistance, particularly electronic health record documentation guidance and linkages to state smoking cessation programs. Practice facilitators reported that the easiest interventions were those that did not alter care practices.

CONCLUSIONS

The dual perspectives of practice leaders and practice facilitators provide a more holistic picture of enablers and barriers to program implementation. There may be greater opportunities to assist small practices through simple, targeted practice facilitator-supported efforts rather than larger, comprehensive quality improvement projects.