1
|
Nevedal AL, Widerquist MAO, Reardon CM, Arasim M, Jackson GL, White B, Burns M, Fix GM, DeLaughter K, Cutrona SL, Gifford AL, Jasuja GK, Hogan TP, King HA, Henderson B, Damschroder LJ. Understanding pathways from implementation to sustainment: a longitudinal, mixed methods analysis of promising practices implemented in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci 2024; 19:34. [PMID: 38715094 PMCID: PMC11075255 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-024-01361-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the United States largest learning health system. The Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program is a large-scale model of diffusion that identifies and diffuses evidence-informed practices across VHA. During the period of 2016-2021, 57 evidence-informed practices were implemented across 82 VHA facilities. This setting provides a unique opportunity to understand sustainment determinants and pathways. Our objective was to characterize the longitudinal pathways of practices as they transition from initial implementation to long-term sustainment at each facility. METHODS A longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of 82 VHA facilities. Eighty-two facility representatives, chosen by leadership as points-of-contact for 57 DoE practices, were eligible for post-implementation interviews and annual sustainment surveys. Primary outcomes (implementation, sustainment), and secondary outcomes (institutionalization, effectiveness, anticipated sustainment) at four time-points were collected. We performed descriptive statistics and directed content analysis using Hailemariam et al.'s factors influencing sustainment. RESULTS After approximately five years post-implementation (e.g., 2021 sustainment outcomes), of the 82 facilities, about one-third fully sustained their practice compared to one-third that did not fully sustain their practice because it was in a "liminal" stage (neither sustained nor discontinued) or permanently discontinued. The remaining one-third of facilities had missing 2021 sustainment outcomes. A higher percentage of facilities (70%) had inconsistent primary outcomes (changing over time) compared to facilities (30%) with consistent primary outcomes (same over time). Thirty-four percent of facilities with sustained practices reported resilience since they overcame implementation and sustainment barriers. Facilities with sustained practices reported more positive secondary outcomes compared to those that did not sustain their practice. Key factors facilitating practice sustainment included: demonstrating practice effectiveness/benefit, sufficient organizational leadership, sufficient workforce, and adaptation/alignment with local context. Key factors hindering practice sustainment included: insufficient workforce, not able to maintain practice fidelity/integrity, critical incidents related to the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational leadership did not support sustainment of practice, and no ongoing support. CONCLUSIONS We identified diverse pathways from implementation to sustainment, and our data underscore that initial implementation outcomes may not determine long-term sustainment outcomes. This longitudinal evaluation contributes to understanding impacts of the DoE program, including return on investment, achieving learning health system goals, and insights into achieving high-quality healthcare in VHA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea L Nevedal
- Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd, Mail Stop 152, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
| | - Marilla A Opra Widerquist
- Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd, Mail Stop 152, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd, Mail Stop 152, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - Maria Arasim
- Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd, Mail Stop 152, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - George L Jackson
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Peter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Brandolyn White
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Madison Burns
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Gemmae M Fix
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, Bedford & Boston, MA, USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kathryn DeLaughter
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, Bedford & Boston, MA, USA
| | - Sarah L Cutrona
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, Bedford & Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Allen L Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, Bedford & Boston, MA, USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Guneet K Jasuja
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, Bedford & Boston, MA, USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Timothy P Hogan
- Peter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, Bedford & Boston, MA, USA
| | - Heather A King
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Blake Henderson
- Innovation Ecosystem, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Laura J Damschroder
- Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd, Mail Stop 152, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jackson GL, Fix GM, White BS, Cutrona SL, Reardon CM, Damschroder LJ, Burns M, DeLaughter K, Opra Widerquist MA, Arasim M, Lindquist J, Gifford AL, King HA, Kaitz J, Jasuja GK, Hogan TP, Lopez JCF, Henderson B, Fitzgerald BA, Goetschius A, Hagan D, McCoy C, Seelig A, Nevedal A. Diffusion of excellence: evaluating a system to identify, replicate, and spread promising innovative practices across the Veterans health administration. Front Health Serv 2024; 3:1223277. [PMID: 38420338 PMCID: PMC10900518 DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1223277] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
Introduction The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program provides a system to identify, replicate, and spread promising practices across the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. DoE identifies innovations that have been successfully implemented in the VHA through a Shark Tank style competition. VHA facility and regional directors bid resources needed to replicate promising practices. Winning facilities/regions receive external facilitation to aid in replication/implementation over the course of a year. DoE staff then support diffusion of successful practices across the nationwide VHA. Methods Organized around the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework, we summarize results of an ongoing long-term mixed-methods implementation evaluation of DoE. Data sources include: Shark Tank application and bid details, tracking practice adoptions through a Diffusion Marketplace, characteristics of VHA facilities, focus groups with Shark Tank bidders, structured observations of DoE events, surveys of DoE program participants, and semi-structured interviews of national VHA program office leaders, VHA healthcare system/facility executives, practice developers, implementation teams and facilitators. Results In the first eight Shark Tanks (2016-2022), 3,280 Shark Tank applications were submitted; 88 were designated DoE Promising Practices (i.e., practices receive facilitated replication). DoE has effectively spread practices across the VHA, with 1,440 documented instances of adoption/replication of practices across the VHA. This includes 180 adoptions/replications in facilities located in rural areas. Leadership decisions to adopt innovations are often based on big picture considerations such as constituency support and linkage to organizational goals. DoE Promising Practices that have the greatest national spread have been successfully replicated at new sites during the facilitated replication process, have close partnerships with VHA national program offices, and tend to be less expensive to implement. Two indicators of sustainment indicate that 56 of the 88 Promising Practices are still being diffused across the VHA; 56% of facilities originally replicating the practices have sustained them, even up to 6 years after the first Shark Tank. Conclusion DoE has developed a sustainable process for the identification, replication, and spread of promising practices as part of a learning health system committed to providing equitable access to high quality care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George L. Jackson
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, Durham, NC, United States
- Advancing Implementation and Improvement Science Program, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Gemmae M. Fix
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford and Boston, MA, United States
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
- Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Brandolyn S. White
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Sarah L. Cutrona
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford and Boston, MA, United States
- Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States
| | - Caitlin M. Reardon
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | - Laura J. Damschroder
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | - Madison Burns
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Kathryn DeLaughter
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford and Boston, MA, United States
| | | | - Maria Arasim
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | - Jennifer Lindquist
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Allen L. Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford and Boston, MA, United States
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
- Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Heather A. King
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Jenesse Kaitz
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford and Boston, MA, United States
| | - Guneet K. Jasuja
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford and Boston, MA, United States
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
- Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Timothy P. Hogan
- Advancing Implementation and Improvement Science Program, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford and Boston, MA, United States
| | - Jaifred Christian F. Lopez
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Blake Henderson
- VHA Innovation Ecosystem, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Blaine A. Fitzgerald
- VHA Innovation Ecosystem, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Amber Goetschius
- VHA Innovation Ecosystem, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Danielle Hagan
- VHA Innovation Ecosystem, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Carl McCoy
- VHA Innovation Ecosystem, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Alex Seelig
- Agile Six Applications, Inc., San Diego, CA, United States
| | - Andrea Nevedal
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tjilos M, Drainoni ML, Burrowes SAB, Butler JM, Damschroder LJ, Bidwell Goetz M, Madaras-Kelly K, Reardon CM, Samore MH, Shen J, Stenehjem EA, Zhang Y, Barlam TF. A qualitative evaluation of frontline clinician perspectives toward antibiotic stewardship programs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2023; 44:1995-2001. [PMID: 36987859 PMCID: PMC10755145 DOI: 10.1017/ice.2023.35] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the perspectives of caregivers that are not part of the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) leadership team (eg, physicians, nurses, and clinical pharmacists), but who interact with ASPs in their role as frontline healthcare workers. DESIGN Qualitative semistructured interviews. SETTING The study was conducted in 2 large national healthcare systems including 7 hospitals in the Veterans' Health Administration and 4 hospitals in Intermountain Healthcare. PARTICIPANTS We interviewed 157 participants. The current analysis includes 123 nonsteward clinicians: 47 physicians, 26 pharmacists, 29 nurses, and 21 hospital leaders. METHODS Interviewers utilized a semistructured interview guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which was tailored to the participant's role in the hospital as it related to ASPs. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a codebook based on the CFIR. RESULTS We identified 4 primary perspectives regarding ASPs. (1) Non-ASP pharmacists considered antibiotic stewardship activities to be a high priority despite the added burden to work duties: (2) Nurses acknowledged limited understanding of ASP activities or involvement with these programs; (3) Physicians criticized ASPs for their restrictions on clinical autonomy and questioned the ability of antibiotic stewards to make recommendations without the full clinical picture; And (4) hospital leaders expressed support for ASPs and recognized the unique challenges faced by non-ASP clinical staff. CONCLUSION Further understanding these differing perspectives of ASP implementation will inform possible ways to improve ASP implementation across clinical roles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Tjilos
- Department of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Boston University, BostonMassachusetts
| | - Mari-Lynn Drainoni
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
- Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Shana A. B. Burrowes
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jorie M. Butler
- Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Geriatric Education and Clinical Center and IDEAS Center of Innovation, Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Laura J. Damschroder
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew Bidwell Goetz
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
- David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California
| | - Karl Madaras-Kelly
- Boise VA Medical Center, Boise, Idaho
- College of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, MeridianIdaho
| | - Caitlin M. Reardon
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew H. Samore
- IDEAS Center of Innovation, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Divison of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Jincheng Shen
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Edward A. Stenehjem
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Yue Zhang
- Divison of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Tamar F. Barlam
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cutrona SL, White L, Miano D, Damschroder LJ, Hogan TP, Gifford AL, White B, King HA, Opra Widerquist MA, Orvek E, DeLaughter K, Nevedal AL, Reardon CM, Henderson B, Vega R, Jackson GL. Supporting Veteran's Administration Medical Center Directors' Decisions When Adopting Innovative Practices: Development and Implementation of the "QuickView" and "WishList" Tools. Perm J 2023; 27:79-91. [PMID: 37545198 PMCID: PMC10502382 DOI: 10.7812/tpp/23.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/08/2023]
Abstract
Background Since 2015, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence Program has supported spread of practices developed by frontline employees. Shark Tank-style competitions encourage "Sharks" nationwide (VHA medical center/regional directors) to bid for the opportunity to implement practices at their institutions. Methods The authors evaluated bidding strategies (2016-2020), developing the "QuickView" practice comparator to promote informed bidding. Program leaders distributed QuickView and revised versions in subsequent competitions. Our team utilized in-person observation, online chats after the competition, bidder interviews, and bid analysis to evaluate QuickView use. Bids were ranked based on demonstrated understanding of resources required for practice implementation. Results Sharks stated that QuickView supported preparation before the competition and suggested improvements. Our revised tool reported necessary staff time and incorporated a "WishList" from practice finalists detailing minimum requirements for successful implementation. Bids from later years reflected increased review of facilities' current states before the competition and increased understanding of the resources needed for implementation. Percentage of bids describing local need for the practice rose from 2016 to 2020: 4.7% (6/127); 62.1% (54/87); 78.3% (36/46); 80.6% (29/36); 89.7% (26/29). Percentage of bids committing specific resources rose following QuickView introduction: 81.1% (103/127) in 2016, 69.0% (60/87) in 2017, then 73.9% (34/46) in 2018, 88.9% (32/36) in 2019, and 89.7% (26/29) in 2020. Discussion In the years following QuickView/WishList implementation, bids reflected increased assessment before the competition of both local needs and available resources. Conclusion Selection of a new practice for implementation requires an understanding of local need, necessary resources, and fit. QuickView and WishList appear to support these determinations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah L Cutrona
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, MA, USA
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Lindsay White
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, MA, USA
| | - Danielle Miano
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, MA, USA
| | - Laura J Damschroder
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Timothy P Hogan
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, MA, USA
- Department of Population and Data Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Allen L Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, MA, USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Brandolyn White
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Heather A King
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Division of General Internal Medicine, and Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - Elizabeth Orvek
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, MA, USA
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Kathryn DeLaughter
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, MA, USA
| | - Andrea L Nevedal
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Blake Henderson
- Diffusion of Excellence, Office of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, VHA, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ryan Vega
- Office of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, VHA, Bedford, MA, USA
| | - George L Jackson
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Division of General Internal Medicine, and Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Reardon CM, Damschroder L, Opra Widerquist MA, Arasim M, Jackson GL, White B, Cutrona SL, Fix GM, Gifford AL, DeLaughter K, King HA, Henderson B, Vega R, Nevedal AL. Sustainment of diverse evidence-informed practices disseminated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): initial development and piloting of a pragmatic survey tool. Implement Sci Commun 2023; 4:6. [PMID: 36647162 PMCID: PMC9842210 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-022-00386-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 12/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are challenges associated with measuring sustainment of evidence-informed practices (EIPs). First, the terms sustainability and sustainment are often falsely conflated: sustainability assesses the likelihood of an EIP being in use in the future while sustainment assesses the extent to which an EIP is (or is not) in use. Second, grant funding often ends before sustainment can be assessed. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program is one of few large-scale models of diffusion; it seeks to identify and disseminate practices across the VHA system. The DoE sponsors "Shark Tank" competitions, in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a practice with approximately 6 months of implementation support. As part of an ongoing evaluation of the DoE, we sought to develop and pilot a pragmatic survey tool to assess sustainment of DoE practices. METHODS In June 2020, surveys were sent to 64 facilities that were part of the DoE evaluation. We began analysis by comparing alignment of quantitative and qualitative responses; some facility representatives reported in the open-text box of the survey that their practice was on a temporary hold due to COVID-19 but answered the primary outcome question differently. As a result, the team reclassified the primary outcome of these facilities to Sustained: Temporary COVID-Hold. Following this reclassification, the number and percent of facilities in each category was calculated. We used directed content analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to analyze open-text box responses. RESULTS A representative from forty-one facilities (64%) completed the survey. Among responding facilities, 29/41 sustained their practice, 1/41 partially sustained their practice, 8/41 had not sustained their practice, and 3/41 had never implemented their practice. Sustainment rates increased between Cohorts 1-4. CONCLUSIONS The initial development and piloting of our pragmatic survey allowed us to assess sustainment of DoE practices. Planned updates to the survey will enable flexibility in assessing sustainment and its determinants at any phase after adoption. This assessment approach can flex with the longitudinal and dynamic nature of sustainment, including capturing nuances in outcomes when practices are on a temporary hold. If additional piloting illustrates the survey is useful, we plan to assess the reliability and validity of this measure for broader use in the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caitlin M. Reardon
- grid.413800.e0000 0004 0419 7525Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Laura Damschroder
- grid.413800.e0000 0004 0419 7525Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Marilla A. Opra Widerquist
- grid.413800.e0000 0004 0419 7525Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Maria Arasim
- grid.413800.e0000 0004 0419 7525Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - George L. Jackson
- grid.512153.1Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, USA ,grid.26009.3d0000 0004 1936 7961Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, USA ,grid.26009.3d0000 0004 1936 7961Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, USA ,grid.26009.3d0000 0004 1936 7961Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, Duke University, Durham, USA
| | - Brandolyn White
- grid.512153.1Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, USA
| | - Sarah L. Cutrona
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, USA ,Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, USA ,grid.168645.80000 0001 0742 0364Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA
| | - Gemmae M. Fix
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, USA ,grid.189504.10000 0004 1936 7558Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, USA
| | - Allen L. Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, USA ,grid.189504.10000 0004 1936 7558Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, USA ,grid.189504.10000 0004 1936 7558Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University, Boston, USA
| | - Kathryn DeLaughter
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Bedford, USA ,Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, USA
| | - Heather A. King
- grid.512153.1Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, USA ,grid.26009.3d0000 0004 1936 7961Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, USA ,grid.26009.3d0000 0004 1936 7961Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, USA
| | - Blake Henderson
- grid.239186.70000 0004 0481 9574Innovation Ecosystem, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, D.C., USA
| | - Ryan Vega
- grid.239186.70000 0004 0481 9574Innovation Ecosystem, United States Veterans Health Administration, Washington, D.C., USA
| | - Andrea L. Nevedal
- grid.413800.e0000 0004 0419 7525Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci 2022; 17:75. [DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Accepted: 10/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Many implementation efforts fail, even with highly developed plans for execution, because contextual factors can be powerful forces working against implementation in the real world. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is one of the most commonly used determinant frameworks to assess these contextual factors; however, it has been over 10 years since publication and there is a need for updates. The purpose of this project was to elicit feedback from experienced CFIR users to inform updates to the framework.
Methods
User feedback was obtained from two sources: (1) a literature review with a systematic search; and (2) a survey of authors who used the CFIR in a published study. Data were combined across both sources and reviewed to identify themes; a consensus approach was used to finalize all CFIR updates. The VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System IRB declared this study exempt from the requirements of 38 CFR 16 based on category 2.
Results
The systematic search yielded 376 articles that contained the CFIR in the title and/or abstract and 334 unique authors with contact information; 59 articles included feedback on the CFIR. Forty percent (n = 134/334) of authors completed the survey. The CFIR received positive ratings on most framework sensibility items (e.g., applicability, usability), but respondents also provided recommendations for changes. Overall, updates to the CFIR include revisions to existing domains and constructs as well as the addition, removal, or relocation of constructs. These changes address important critiques of the CFIR, including better centering innovation recipients and adding determinants to equity in implementation.
Conclusion
The updates in the CFIR reflect feedback from a growing community of CFIR users. Although there are many updates, constructs can be mapped back to the original CFIR to ensure longitudinal consistency. We encourage users to continue critiquing the CFIR, facilitating the evolution of the framework as implementation science advances.
Collapse
|
7
|
Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Opra Widerquist MA, Lowery J. Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR Outcomes Addendum. Implement Sci 2022; 17:7. [PMID: 35065675 PMCID: PMC8783408 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01181-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 135] [Impact Index Per Article: 67.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Accepted: 12/14/2021] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations (EBIs) are widely recognized among practitioners and researchers. Context, broadly defined as everything outside the EBI, includes the dynamic and diverse array of forces working for or against implementation efforts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is one of the most widely used frameworks to guide assessment of contextual determinants of implementation. The original 2009 article invited critique in recognition for the need for the framework to evolve. As implementation science has matured, gaps in the CFIR have been identified and updates are needed. Our team is developing the CFIR 2.0 based on a literature review and follow-up survey with authors. We propose an Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR to address recommendations from these sources to include outcomes in the framework. MAIN TEXT We conducted a literature review and surveyed corresponding authors of included articles to identify recommendations for the CFIR. There were recommendations to add both implementation and innovation outcomes from these sources. Based on these recommendations, we make conceptual distinctions between (1) anticipated implementation outcomes and actual implementation outcomes, (2) implementation outcomes and innovation outcomes, and (3) CFIR-based implementation determinants and innovation determinants. CONCLUSION An Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR is proposed. Our goal is to offer clear conceptual distinctions between types of outcomes for use with the CFIR, and perhaps other determinant implementation frameworks as well. These distinctions can help bring clarity as researchers consider which outcomes are most appropriate to evaluate in their research. We hope that sharing this in advance will generate feedback and debate about the merits of our proposed addendum.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura J Damschroder
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - Marilla A Opra Widerquist
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - Julie Lowery
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kerins C, Kelly C, Reardon CM, Houghton C, Toomey E, Hayes CB, Geaney F, Perry IJ, McSharry J, McHugh S. Factors Influencing Fidelity to a Calorie Posting Policy in Public Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study. Front Public Health 2021; 9:707668. [PMID: 34485232 PMCID: PMC8414889 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.707668] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Labelling menus with nutrition information has increasingly become an important obesity policy option. While much research to-date has focused on determining its effectiveness, few studies report the extent to which menu labelling is implemented as designed. The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing fidelity to a calorie posting policy in Irish acute public hospitals. Methods: A mixed methods sequential explanatory study design was employed, with a nested case study for the qualitative component. Quantitative data on implementation fidelity at hospitals were analysed first and informed case sampling in the follow-on qualitative phase. Maximum variation sampling was used to select four hospitals with high and low levels of implementation and variation in terms of geographic location, hospital size, complexity of care provided and hospital type. Data were collected using structured observations, unstructured non-participant observations and in-depth semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided qualitative data collection and analysis. Using framework analysis, factors influencing implementation were identified. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate fidelity findings from multiple sources. Data on influencing factors and fidelity were then combined using joint displays for within and cross-case analysis. Results: Quantitative fidelity data showed seven hospitals were categorised as low implementers and 28 hospitals were high implementers of the policy. Across the four hospitals selected as cases, qualitative analysis revealed factors influencing implementation and fidelity were multiple, and operated independently and in combination. Factors were related to the internal hospital environment (e.g., leadership support, access to knowledge and information, perceived importance of calorie posting implementation), external hospital environment (e.g., national policy, monitoring), features of the calorie posting policy (e.g., availability of supporting materials), and the implementation process (e.g., engaging relevant stakeholders). Integrated analysis of fidelity indicated a pattern of partial adherence to the calorie posting policy across the four hospitals. Across all hospitals, there was a consistent pattern of low adherence to calorie posting across all menu items on sale, low adherence to calorie information displayed per standard portion or per meal, low adherence to standardised recipes/portions, and inaccurate calorie information. Conclusion: Efforts to maximise fidelity require multi-level, multi-component strategies in order to reduce or mitigate barriers and to leverage facilitators. Future research should examine the relative importance of calorie posting determinants and the association between implementation strategies and shifts in fidelity to intervention core components.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Kerins
- Discipline of Health Promotion, School of Health Sciences, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Colette Kelly
- Discipline of Health Promotion, School of Health Sciences, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | - Catherine Houghton
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Elaine Toomey
- Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.,Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Catherine B Hayes
- Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Fiona Geaney
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Ivan J Perry
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Jenny McSharry
- Health Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Sheena McHugh
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Nevedal AL, Reardon CM, Opra Widerquist MA, Jackson GL, Cutrona SL, White BS, Damschroder LJ. Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implement Sci 2021; 16:67. [PMID: 34215286 PMCID: PMC8252308 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 123] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2020] [Accepted: 04/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Qualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately “coded” notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor. Results Cohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches. Conclusion Our rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea L Nevedal
- Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), 795 Willow Road, Building 324, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA.
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd. (152), Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - Marilla A Opra Widerquist
- Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd. (152), Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - George L Jackson
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, USA.,Department of Population Health Science, Duke University, Durham, USA.,Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, USA.,Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, USA
| | - Sarah L Cutrona
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Boston, USA.,Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA.,Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA
| | - Brandolyn S White
- Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, USA
| | - Laura J Damschroder
- Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd. (152), Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jackson GL, Cutrona SL, White BS, Reardon CM, Orvek E, Nevedal AL, Lindquist J, Gifford AL, White L, King HA, DeLaughter K, Houston TK, Henderson B, Vega R, Kilbourne AM, Damschroder LJ. Merging Implementation Practice and Science to Scale Up Promising Practices: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) Program. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2020; 47:217-227. [PMID: 33549485 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Revised: 11/23/2020] [Accepted: 11/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program developed and manages a framework for identification, replication, and diffusion of promising practices throughout the nation's largest integrated health care system. DoE identifies promising practices through a "Shark Tank" competition with winning bidders receiving external implementation facilitation. DoE further supports diffusion of successful practices across the VHA. METHODS This article presents results of a mixed methods implementation evaluation of DoE, focusing on program reach, program participation and decisions to adopt innovative practices, implementation processes, and practice sustainment. Data sources include practice adoption metrics, focus groups with bidders (two focus groups), observations of DoE events (seven events), surveys of stakeholders (five separate surveys), and semistructured interviews of facility directors, practice developers, implementation teams, and facilitators (133 participants). RESULTS In the first four Shark Tank cohorts (2016-2018), 1,676 practices were submitted; 47 were designated Gold Status Practices (practices with facilitated implementation). Motivation for participation varied. Generally, staff led projects targeting problems they felt passionate about, facility directors focused on big-picture quality metrics and getting middle manager support, and frontline staff displayed variable motivation to implement new projects. Approximately half of facilitated implementation efforts were successful; barriers included insufficient infrastructure, staff, and resources. At the facility level, 73.3% of facilities originating or receiving facilitated implementation support have maintained the practice. VHA-wide, 834 decisions to adopt these practices were made. CONCLUSION DoE has resulted in the identification of many candidate practices, promoted adoption of promising practices by facility directors, and supported practice implementation and diffusion across the VHA.
Collapse
|
11
|
Cannon JS, Gilbert M, Ebener P, Malone PS, Reardon CM, Acosta J, Chinman M. Influence of an Implementation Support Intervention on Barriers and Facilitators to Delivery of a Substance Use Prevention Program. Prev Sci 2020; 20:1200-1210. [PMID: 31473932 DOI: 10.1007/s11121-019-01037-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Implementation support interventions have helped organizations implement programs with quality and obtain intended outcomes. For example, a recent randomized controlled trial called Preparing to Run Effective Programs (PREP) showed that an implementation support intervention called Getting To Outcomes (GTO) improved implementation of an evidence-based substance use prevention program (CHOICE) run in community-based settings. However, more information is needed on how these interventions affect organizational barriers and facilitators of implementation. This paper aims to identify differences in implementation facilitators and barriers in sites conducting a substance use prevention program with and without GTO. PREP is a cluster-randomized controlled trial testing GTO, a two-year implementation support intervention, in Boys & Girls Clubs. The trial compares 15 Boys & Girls Club sites implementing CHOICE (control group), a five-session evidence-based alcohol and drug prevention program, with 14 Boys & Girls Club sites implementing CHOICE supported by GTO (intervention group). All sites received CHOICE training. Intervention sites also received GTO manuals, training, and onsite technical assistance to help practitioners complete implementation best practices specified by GTO (i.e., GTO steps). During the first year, technical assistance providers helped the intervention group adopt, plan, and deliver CHOICE, and then evaluate and make quality improvements to CHOICE implementation using feedback reports summarizing their data. Following the second year of CHOICE and GTO implementation, all sites participated in semi-structured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators to CHOICE implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). This paper assesses the extent to which these facilitators and barriers differed between intervention and control group. Intervention sites had significantly higher average ratings than control sites for two constructs from the CFIR process domain: planning and reflecting and evaluating. At the same time, intervention sites had significantly lower ratings on the culture and available resources constructs. Findings suggest that strong planning, evaluation, and reflection-likely improved with GTO support-can facilitate implementation even in the face of perceptions of a less desirable implementation climate. These findings highlight that implementation support, such as GTO, is likely to help low-resourced community-based organizations improve program delivery through a focus on implementation processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02135991 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02135991). The trial was first registered May 12, 2014.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jill S Cannon
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA.
| | - Marylou Gilbert
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA
| | - Patricia Ebener
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA
| | | | - Caitlin M Reardon
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Joie Acosta
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA
| | - Matthew Chinman
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Nevedal AL, Reardon CM, Jackson GL, Cutrona SL, White B, Gifford AL, Orvek E, DeLaughter K, White L, King HA, Henderson B, Vega R, Damschroder L. Implementation and sustainment of diverse practices in a large integrated health system: a mixed methods study. Implement Sci Commun 2020; 1:61. [PMID: 32885216 PMCID: PMC7427879 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-020-00053-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2020] [Accepted: 06/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND One goal of health systems seeking to evolve into learning health systems is to accelerate the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). As part of this evolution, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Innovation Ecosystem, which includes the Diffusion of Excellence (DoE), a program that identifies and diffuses Gold Status Practices (GSPs) across facilities. The DoE hosts an annual "Shark Tank" competition in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a GSP with 6 months of implementation support. Over 750 diverse practices were submitted in cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank; 23 were designated GSPs and were implemented in 31 VA networks or facilities. As part of a national evaluation of the DoE, we identified factors contributing to GSP implementation and sustainment. METHODS Our sequential mixed methods evaluation of cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank included semi-structured interviews with at least one representative from 30/31 implementing teams (N = 78/105 people invited) and survey responses from 29/31 teams (N = 39/47 invited). Interviews focused on factors influencing implementation and future sustainment. Surveys focused on sustainment 1.5-2 years after implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed data collection and directed content analysis. Ordinal scales were developed inductively to rank implementation and sustainment outcomes. RESULTS Over 50% of teams (17/30) successfully implemented their GSP within the 6-month implementation period. Despite extensive implementation support, significant barriers related to centralized decision-making, staffing, and resources led to partial (n = 6) or no (n = 7) implementation for the remaining teams. While 12/17 initially successful implementation teams reported sustained use of their GSP, over half of the initially unsuccessful teams (n = 7/13) also reported sustained GSP use 1.5 years after the initial implementation period. When asked at 6 months, 18/27 teams with complete data accurately anticipated their future sustainability based on reported sustainment an average of 1.5 years later. CONCLUSIONS Most teams implemented within 6 months and/or sustained their GSP 1.5 years later. High levels of implementation and sustainment across diverse practices and teams suggest that VHA's DoE is a successful large-scale model of diffusion. Team predictions about sustainability after the first 6 months of implementation provide a promising early assessment and point of intervention to increase sustainability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea L. Nevedal
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VHA Palo Alto Health Care System, 795 Willow Road (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA
| | - Caitlin M. Reardon
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VHA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd., 152, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 USA
| | - George L. Jackson
- Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VHA Health Care System, HSR&D (152) Suite 600, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701 USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, 215 Morris Street, Durham, NC 27701 USA
| | - Sarah L. Cutrona
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VHA Medical Centers, 200 Springs Road (152), Building 70, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, The Albert Sherman Center, Worcester, MA 01605 USA
| | - Brandolyn White
- Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VHA Health Care System, HSR&D (152) Suite 600, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701 USA
| | - Allen L. Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VHA Medical Centers, 200 Springs Road (152), Building 70, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine & Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University, 715 Albany St., Talbot Building, T2W, Boston, MA 02118 USA
| | - Elizabeth Orvek
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VHA Medical Centers, 200 Springs Road (152), Building 70, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, The Albert Sherman Center, Worcester, MA 01605 USA
| | - Kathryn DeLaughter
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VHA Medical Centers, 200 Springs Road (152), Building 70, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, The Albert Sherman Center, Worcester, MA 01605 USA
| | - Lindsay White
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VHA Medical Centers, 200 Springs Road (152), Building 70, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
| | - Heather A. King
- Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VHA Health Care System, HSR&D (152) Suite 600, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701 USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, 215 Morris Street, Durham, NC 27701 USA
| | - Blake Henderson
- Diffusion of Excellence, VHA Innovation Ecosystem, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20420 USA
| | - Ryan Vega
- VHA Office of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20420 USA
| | - Laura Damschroder
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VHA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd., 152, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Barlam TF, Childs E, Zieminski SA, Meshesha TM, Jones KE, Butler JM, Damschroder LJ, Goetz MB, Madaras-Kelly K, Reardon CM, Samore MH, Shen J, Stenehjem E, Zhang Y, Drainoni ML. Perspectives of Physician and Pharmacist Stewards on Successful Antibiotic Stewardship Program Implementation: A Qualitative Study. Open Forum Infect Dis 2020; 7:ofaa229. [PMID: 32704510 PMCID: PMC7367692 DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa229] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2020] [Accepted: 06/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) are required at every hospital regardless of size. We conducted a qualitative study across different hospital settings to examine perspectives of physician and pharmacist stewards about the dynamics within their team and contextual factors that facilitate the success of their programs. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted in March-November 2018 with 46 ASP stewards, 30 pharmacists, and 16 physicians, from 39 hospitals within 2 large hospital systems. Results We identified 5 major themes: antibiotic stewards were enthusiastic about their role, committed to the goals of stewardship for their patients and as a public-health imperative, and energized by successful interventions; responsibilities of pharmacist and physician stewards are markedly different, and pharmacy stewards performed the majority of the day-to-day stewardship work; collaborative teamwork is important to improving care, the pharmacists and physicians supported each other, and pharmacists believed that having a strong physician leader was essential; provider engagement strategies are a critical component of stewardship, and recommendations must be communicated in a collegial manner that did not judge the provider competence, preferably through face-to-face interactions; and hospital leadership support for ASP goals and for protected time for ASP activities is critical for success. Conclusions The physician-pharmacist team is essential for ASPs; most have pharmacists leading and performing day-to-day activities with physician support. Collaborative, persuasive approaches for ASP interventions were the norm. Stewards were careful not to criticize or judge inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Further research should examine whether this persuasive approach undercuts provider appreciation of stewardship as a public health mandate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamar F Barlam
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ellen Childs
- Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Sarah A Zieminski
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tsega M Meshesha
- Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Kathryn E Jones
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Jorie M Butler
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, University of Utah; Geriatric Education and Clinical Center and IDEAS Center of Innovation, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Laura J Damschroder
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Matthew Bidwell Goetz
- Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System; David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Karl Madaras-Kelly
- Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center; College of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Meridian, Idaho, USA
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Matthew H Samore
- IDEAS Center of Innovation, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.,Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Jincheng Shen
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Edward Stenehjem
- Office of Patient Experience, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Yue Zhang
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Mari-Lynn Drainoni
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, ENRM VA Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kerins C, McHugh S, McSharry J, Reardon CM, Hayes C, Perry IJ, Geaney F, Seery S, Kelly C. Barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from a food service industry perspective: a mixed methods systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2020; 17:48. [PMID: 32295647 PMCID: PMC7161210 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-020-00948-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2019] [Accepted: 03/23/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Eating outside the home contributes to poor dietary habits worldwide and is associated with increased body fat and weight gain. Evidence shows menu labelling is effective in promoting healthier food choices; however, implementation issues have arisen. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from the perspective of the food service industry. Methods Peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched using databases, specialised search engines and public health organisation websites. Screening reference lists, citation chaining and contacting authors of all included studies were undertaken. Primary research studies relevant to direct supply-side stakeholders were eligible for inclusion. There were no restrictions on menu labelling scheme or format, study methods, publication year or language. At least two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. The results were synthesised using the ‘best fit’ framework synthesis approach, with reference to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria, with the majority rated as average quality (n = 10). The most frequently cited barriers were coded to the CFIR constructs ‘Consumer Needs & Resources’ (e.g. lack of customer demand for/interest in menu labelling, risk of overwhelmed/confused customers) and ‘Compatibility’ with organisation work processes (e.g. lack of standardised recipes, limited space on menus). Frequently cited facilitators were coded to the CFIR constructs ‘Relative Advantage’ of menu labelling (e.g. improved business image/reputation) and ‘Consumer Needs & Resources’ (e.g. customer demand for/interest in menu labelling, providing nutrition information to customers). An adapted framework consisting of a priori and new constructs was developed, which illustrates the relationships between domains. Conclusion This review generates an adapted CFIR framework for understanding implementation of menu labelling interventions. It highlights that implementation is influenced by multiple interdependent factors, particularly related to the external and internal context of food businesses, and features of the menu labelling intervention. The findings can be used by researchers and practitioners to develop or select strategies to address barriers that impede implementation and to leverage facilitators that assist with implementation effort. Trial registration Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017083306.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Kerins
- Discipline of Health Promotion, School of Health Sciences, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
| | - Sheena McHugh
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland
| | - Jenny McSharry
- Health Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA
| | - Catherine Hayes
- Discipline of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, Trinity College Dublin Russell Centre, Tallaght Cross, Dublin 24, Ireland
| | - Ivan J Perry
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland
| | - Fiona Geaney
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland
| | - Suzanne Seery
- National Institute for Prevention and Cardiovascular Health, Croí Heart and Stroke Centre, Moyola Lane, Newcastle, Galway, Ireland
| | - Colette Kelly
- Discipline of Health Promotion, School of Health Sciences, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gale RC, Wu J, Erhardt T, Bounthavong M, Reardon CM, Damschroder LJ, Midboe AM. Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci 2019; 14:11. [PMID: 30709368 PMCID: PMC6359833 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0853-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 309] [Impact Index Per Article: 61.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2018] [Accepted: 01/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background It is challenging to conduct and quickly disseminate findings from in-depth qualitative analyses, which can impede timely implementation of interventions because of its time-consuming methods. To better understand tradeoffs between the need for actionable results and scientific rigor, we present our method for conducting a framework-guided rapid analysis (RA) and a comparison of these findings to an in-depth analysis of interview transcripts. Methods Set within the context of an evaluation of a successful academic detailing (AD) program for opioid prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration, we developed interview guides informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and interviewed 10 academic detailers (clinical pharmacists) and 20 primary care providers to elicit detail about successful features of the program. For the RA, verbatim transcripts were summarized using a structured template (based on CFIR); summaries were subsequently consolidated into matrices by participant type to identify aspects of the program that worked well and ways to facilitate implementation elsewhere. For comparison purposes, we later conducted an in-depth analysis of the transcripts. We described our RA approach and qualitatively compared the RA and deductive in-depth analysis with respect to consistency of themes and resource intensity. Results Integrating the CFIR throughout the RA and in-depth analysis was helpful for providing structure and consistency across both analyses. Findings from the two analyses were consistent. The most frequently coded constructs from the in-depth analysis aligned well with themes from the RA, and the latter methods were sufficient and appropriate for addressing the primary evaluation goals. Our approach to RA was less resource-intensive than the in-depth analysis, allowing for timely dissemination of findings to our operations partner that could be integrated into ongoing implementation. Conclusions In-depth analyses can be resource-intensive. If consistent with project needs (e.g., to quickly produce information to inform ongoing implementation or to comply with a policy mandate), it is reasonable to consider using RA, especially when faced with resource constraints. Our RA provided valid findings in a short timeframe, enabling identification of actionable suggestions for our operations partner. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0853-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Randall C Gale
- Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford University, 795 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA
| | - Justina Wu
- Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford University, 795 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA
| | - Taryn Erhardt
- Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford University, 795 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA
| | - Mark Bounthavong
- Veterans Health Administration, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Academic Detailing Service, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, 2215 Fuller Rd (152), Ann Arbor, 48113-0170, MI, USA
| | - Laura J Damschroder
- VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, 2215 Fuller Rd (152), Ann Arbor, 48113-0170, MI, USA
| | - Amanda M Midboe
- Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford University, 795 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Sperber N, Robinson CH, Fickel JJ, Oddone EZ. Implementation evaluation of the Telephone Lifestyle Coaching (TLC) program: organizational factors associated with successful implementation. Transl Behav Med 2018; 7:233-241. [PMID: 27688249 DOI: 10.1007/s13142-016-0424-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
The Telephone Lifestyle Coaching (TLC) program provided telephone-based coaching for six lifestyle behaviors to 5321 Veterans at 24 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical facilities. The purpose of the study was to conduct an evaluation of the TLC program to identify factors associated with successful implementation. A mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures of organizational readiness for implementation and facility complexity were used to purposively select a subset of facilities for in-depth evaluation. Context assessments were conducted using interview transcripts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide qualitative data collection and analysis. Factors most strongly correlated with referral rates included having a skilled implementation leader who used effective multi-component strategies to engage primary care clinicians as well as general clinic structures that supported implementation. Evaluation findings pointed to recommendations for local and national leaders to help anticipate and mitigate potential barriers to successful implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura J Damschroder
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (152), 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (152), 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - Nina Sperber
- VA Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, VA Durham Healthcare System and Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Claire H Robinson
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (152), 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
| | - Jacqueline J Fickel
- VA Center for Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Eugene Z Oddone
- VA Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, VA Durham Healthcare System and Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, AuYoung M, Moin T, Datta SK, Sparks JB, Maciejewski ML, Steinle NI, Weinreb JE, Hughes M, Pinault LF, Xiang XM, Billington C, Richardson CR. Implementation findings from a hybrid III implementation-effectiveness trial of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Implement Sci 2017; 12:94. [PMID: 28747191 PMCID: PMC5530572 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0619-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2017] [Accepted: 07/04/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes. However, there are gaps in knowledge about how to implement DPP. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of DPP via assessment of a clinical demonstration in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Methods A 12-month pragmatic clinical trial compared weight outcomes between the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) and the usual care MOVE!® weight management program (MOVE!). Eligible participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 (or BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 with one obesity-related condition), prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7–6.5% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100–125 mg/dL), lived within 60 min of their VA site, and had not participated in a weight management program within the last year. Established evaluation and implementation frameworks were used to guide the implementation evaluation. Implementation barriers and facilitators, delivery fidelity, participant satisfaction, and implementation costs were assessed. Using micro-costing methods, costs for assessment of eligibility and scheduling and maintaining adherence per participant, as well as cost of delivery per session, were also assessed. Results Several barriers and facilitators to Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance were identified; barriers related to Reach were the largest challenge encountered by site teams. Fidelity was higher for VA-DPP delivery compared to MOVE! for five of seven domains assessed. Participant satisfaction was high in both programs, but higher in VA-DPP for most items. Based on micro-costing methods, cost of assessment for eligibility was $68/individual assessed, cost of scheduling and maintaining adherence was $328/participant, and cost of delivery was $101/session. Conclusions Multi-faceted strategies are needed to reach targeted participants and successfully implement DPP. Costs for assessing patients for eligibility need to be carefully considered while still maximizing reach to the targeted population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura J Damschroder
- Ann Arbor VA HSR&D/Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA. .,VA Diabetes QUERI, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- Ann Arbor VA HSR&D/Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA
| | - Mona AuYoung
- Ann Arbor VA HSR&D/Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA.,Scripps Translational Science Institute/The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, Mail Drop: TRY-30, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA
| | - Tannaz Moin
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd 3, Los Angeles, CA, 90073, USA.,David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Greater Los Angeles VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Center for Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Santanu K Datta
- Durham VA Medical Center HSR&D, 411 W Chapel Hill St, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.,Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Jordan B Sparks
- Ann Arbor VA HSR&D/Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA
| | - Matthew L Maciejewski
- Durham VA Medical Center HSR&D, 411 W Chapel Hill St, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.,Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Nanette I Steinle
- VA Maryland Healthcare System, 10 North Greene St, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.,University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jane E Weinreb
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd 3, Los Angeles, CA, 90073, USA.,David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Maria Hughes
- Ann Arbor VA HSR&D/Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA
| | - Lillian F Pinault
- VA Maryland Healthcare System, 10 North Greene St, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.,University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Xinran M Xiang
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Louisiana State University Pediatric Neurology Program, 1542 Tulane Ave Rm 763, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA
| | - Charles Billington
- Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.,University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Caroline R Richardson
- Ann Arbor VA HSR&D/Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA.,VA Diabetes QUERI, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,University of Michigan Department of Family Medicine, 1018 Fuller St, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Damschroder LJ, Moin T, Datta SK, Reardon CM, Steinle N, Weinreb J, Billington CJ, Maciejewski ML, Yancy WS, Hughes M, Makki F, Richardson CR. Implementation and evaluation of the VA DPP clinical demonstration: protocol for a multi-site non-randomized hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III trial. Implement Sci 2015; 10:68. [PMID: 25962598 PMCID: PMC4429938 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0250-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2015] [Accepted: 04/18/2015] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study showed that lifestyle intervention resulted in a 58% reduction in incidence of type 2 diabetes among individuals with prediabetes. Additional large randomized controlled trials have confirmed these results, and long-term follow-up has shown sustained benefit 10–20 years after the interventions ended. Diabetes is a common and costly disease, especially among Veterans, and despite strong evidence supporting the feasibility of type 2 diabetes prevention, the DPP has not been widely implemented. The first aim of this study will evaluate implementation of the Veterans Affairs (VA) DPP in three VA medical centers. The second aim will assess weight and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) outcomes, and the third aim will determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of implementation of the VA DPP from a health system perspective. Methods/Design This partnered multi-site non-randomized systematic assignment study will use a highly pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III mixed methods study design. The implementation and administration of the VA DPP will be funded by clinical operations while the evaluation of the VA DPP will be funded by research grants. Seven hundred twenty eligible Veterans will be systematically assigned to the VA DPP clinical demonstration or the usual care VA MOVE!® weight management program. A multi-phase formative evaluation of the VA DPP implementation will be conducted. A theoretical program change model will be used to guide the implementation process and assess applicability and feasibility of the DPP for VA. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to guide qualitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation of barriers and facilitators to implementation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of the VA DPP. Twelve-month weight and A1c change will be evaluated for the VA DPP compared to the VA MOVE! program. Mediation analyses will be conducted to identify whether program design differences impact outcomes. Discussion Findings from this pragmatic evaluation will be highly applicable to practitioners who are tasked with implementing the DPP in clinical settings. In addition, findings will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VA DPP in the Veteran population. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0250-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura J Damschroder
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA. .,VA Diabetes QUERI, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - Tannaz Moin
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. .,David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. .,Greater Los Angeles VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR & D) Center for Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Santanu K Datta
- Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. .,Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
| | - Caitlin M Reardon
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA.
| | - Nanette Steinle
- Baltimore VA Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. .,University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Jane Weinreb
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. .,David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Charles J Billington
- Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, Minneapolis, MN, USA. .,University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
| | - Matt L Maciejewski
- Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. .,Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
| | - William S Yancy
- Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. .,Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
| | - Maria Hughes
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA.
| | - Fatima Makki
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA.
| | - Caroline R Richardson
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, P.O. Box 130170, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-0170, USA. .,VA Diabetes QUERI, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. .,Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Reardon CM, O'Ceallaigh S, O'Sullivan ST. An anatomical study of the superficial inferior epigastric vessels in humans. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2004; 57:515-9. [PMID: 15308397 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2004.04.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2003] [Accepted: 04/20/2004] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
The lower abdominal skin and fat has become a standard for breast reconstruction in terms of skin texture, suppleness and colour. Concerns regarding donor site morbidity related to the harvest of rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap, based on the deep inferior epigastric vessels, have turned attention towards alternative options. The superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap is a fasciocutaneous flap that has been used for reconstruction of the breast, as well as head, neck and limb defects. In Taylor's classic dissection series the SIEA was 'absent' in 35% [Plast Reconstr Surg 56 (1975) 243]. In our series of 22 cadaver dissections (eight female, three male) the SIEA was identified in 20 and the vein (SIEV) in 21. In 15, the artery was located at the level of the inguinal ligament, within 1 cm of its midpoint. In 17, the origin, from the common femoral artery, was within 2 cm of the inguinal ligament. In 18, the SIEA arose as a common trunk with the superficial circumflex iliac artery, superficial external pudendal artery, and/or the deep circumflex iliac artery. Mean SIEA calibre was 1.9 mm and the mean pedicle length from origin to inguinal ligament was 5.2 cm. Our findings suggest that the SIEA is more consistently present and larger in calibre than previously reported, and consequently may be of greater clinical use than previously believed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C M Reardon
- Department of Anatomy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
Nail spicules result from incomplete excision of the nail matrix of the finger. We report a histological study to delineate the surface anatomy of the nail matrix. Sections were cut longitudinally and transversely in 19 fingertips. The proximal midline extent of the nail matrix was measured and expressed as a ratio of the distance from the nail fold to the distal interphalangeal joint. In the lateral sections, the angle subtended between the midline vertical and the lateral extent of the nail matrix was measured. The mean ratio of the proximal extent was 0.55 in the midline and the lateral angular extent was 66 degrees. The authors recommend that excision of the nail matrix should be rectangular, extending to the midlateral lines and proximally to a point three-quarters of the distance from the nail fold to the distal interphalangeal joint crease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C M Reardon
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this article is to emphasize the increased risk of developing metachronous ovarian tumors after resection of rectal cancer. METHOD AND RESULTS We report the case of a postmenopausal female patient who, five years after anterior resection, developed a primary ovarian malignancy that invaded a rectal anastomosis and in so doing mimicked a recurrence of a Dukes A rectal cancer. To our knowledge, such an occurrence has not been described previously in the literature. CONCLUSION This case illustrates the possible benefits of routine prophylactic oophorectomy at the time of colorectal cancer resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C M Reardon
- Department of Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Abstract
Procedures designed to limit spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in burns units demand time and resources. To assess the significance of MRSA in burns patients we performed a retrospective review of MRSA colonization in in-patients over a 41-month period at the North Trent Sub-regional Burns Unit. Patients were compared with MRSA free controls, matched for age and percentage body surface area (BSA) burn and admitted during the same time period. Length of stay, number of operations and deaths were outcome indicators. All patients managed non-operatively were excluded, leaving 40 MRSA patients and 46 controls. There was no statistical difference between the two groups with regard to number of operations (p= 0.07), duration of admission (p = 0.12) or mortality (p = 0.09). Of the control group, 83% had wound swabs positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). there was no statistical difference in any outcome variables between this sub-group of controls and MRSA patients. Colonization with S. aureus (both MRSA and MSSA) was associated with larger burns (p<0.05), twice as many operative procedures (p<0.05) and prolonged admissions (p<0.01). Mortality was unaltered by staphylococcal colonization (p = 0.8). Although our study lacks power, we would suggest that methicillin resistance per se is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality in burns patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C M Reardon
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Burns Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Abstract
Spontaneous tendon rupture is an unusual condition usually associated with underlying disease processes such as rheumatoid arthritis, chronic renal failure or bony abnormalities of the hand. We report a case of spontaneous, non-concurrent bilateral rupture of flexor profundus tendons in an otherwise healthy individual. Treatment was successful and consisted of a two-stage reconstruction of the ruptured tendon.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S T O'Sullivan
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Ireland
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
O'Sullivan ST, McGreal GT, Reardon CM, Hehir DJ, Kirwan WO, Brady MP. Selective endoscopy in management of ingested foreign bodies of the upper gastrointestinal tract: is it safe? Int J Clin Pract 1997; 51:289-92. [PMID: 9489086] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
During a four-year period, 308 patients presented following ingestion of foreign bodies. Ingestion was accidental in 272 cases (88.3%) and deliberate in the remainder. Symptoms at presentation included dysphagia, odynophagia, nausea and vomiting, chest pain and pharyngeal discomfort. Sixty-eight patients were asymptomatic. A policy of expectant management and selective endoscopy was employed. Following initial assessment 202 patients (65.6%) were discharged without treatment, 30 (9.7%) of whom were later reviewed as outpatients and did not require admission. Forty-nine patients (16%) were admitted for treatment; 27 had oesophagoscopy, five bronchoscopy and two had foreign body extraction with direct laryngoscopy. In nine patients who were endoscoped, no foreign body was identified. Twenty-seven others were referred to the otorhinolaryngology service in another hospital. There were no deaths in the group and morbidity was 1.2%. We conclude that a policy of selective endoscopy is safe and effective in the management of patients following ingestion of foreign bodies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S T O'Sullivan
- Department of Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Ireland
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
O'Sullivan ST, Reardon CM, McGreal GT, Hehir DJ, Kirwan WO, Brady MP. Deliberate ingestion of foreign bodies by institutionalised psychiatric hospital patients and prison inmates. Ir J Med Sci 1996; 165:294-6. [PMID: 8990660 DOI: 10.1007/bf02943095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
Deliberate and recurrent foreign body ingestion is a common problem among institutionalised patients. We review our experience with 36 cases of deliberate foreign body ingestion by prisoners or psychiatric patients, thirty of whom were institutionalised at the time of ingestion. Symptoms were frequently severe in the prison inmate group but, in contrast, psychiatric patients presented with few, if any, symptoms. A majority of objects pass spontaneously or remain in situ without complication. Twenty-four patients were discharged following initial evaluation and without specific treatment. Eight of these were reviewed electively and discharged within one week. Twelve patients were admitted for observation, seven of whom were discharged within 48 hrs. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed in four patients and an intragastric foreign body identified in two cases. Laparotomy was performed in two cases for unresolving mechanical intestinal obstruction. Management should be conservative when possible, with surgery indicated only for complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S T O'Sullivan
- Department of Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Ireland
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
The increased risk of sepsis in patients following splenectomy has been well documented. Fear of overwhelming post-splenectomy sepsis (OPSI) has resulted in a generalized trend towards splenic salvage among surgeons. However, splenorrhaphy and attempts at splenic salvage may of themselves predispose to significant morbidity, sometimes more serious than increased susceptibility to infection associated with splenectomy. This study aims to assess the risk of splenectomy and subsequent asplenia. We reviewed 246 patients who underwent splenectomy over a 16 year period. Indications for splenectomy were considered under the following headings: haematological (N = 116), trauma (N = 69), visceral carcinoma (N = 28), incidental (N = 13) and miscellaneous (N = 20). There were 28 deaths in the series, primarily among those in the intra-abdominal carcinoma (13) and multiple trauma (13) groups. Two deaths were recorded among patients undergoing elective splenectomy for benign disease. Thrombo-embolic complications were recorded in nine patients; respiratory tract infection in 36 patients and intra-abdominal abscess in two patients. Two cases of post-splenectomy pneumococcal septicaemia were documented, neither of which was fatal. While not an entirely benign procedure, splenectomy can be performed relatively safely, especially when performed for benign disease in an adult population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S T O'Sullivan
- University Department of Surgery, Cork Regional Hospital, Ireland
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|