Dataset Information

Testing implementation facilitation of a primary care-based collaborative care clinical program using a hybrid type III interrupted time series design: a study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dissemination of evidence-based practices that can reduce morbidity and mortality is important to combat the growing opioid overdose crisis in the USA. Research and expert consensus support reducing high-dose opioid therapy, avoiding risky opioid-benzodiazepine combination therapy, and promoting multi-modal, collaborative models of pain care. Collaborative care interventions that support primary care providers have been effective in medication tapering. We developed a patient-centered Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS) collaborative care clinical program based on effective components of previous collaborative care interventions. Implementation facilitation, a multi-faceted and dynamic strategy involving the provision of interactive problem-solving and support during implementation of a new program, is used to support key organizational staff throughout PIPS implementation. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation facilitation strategy for implementing and sustaining PIPS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The secondary aim is to examine the effect of the program on key patient-level clinical outcomes-transitioning to safer regimens and enhancing access to complementary and integrative health treatments. The tertiary aim is to determine the categorical costs and ultimate budget impact of PIPS implementation.

Methods

This multi-site study employs an interrupted time series, hybrid type III design to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation facilitation for a collaborative care clinical program-PIPS-in primary care clinics in three geographically diverse VHA health care systems (sites). Participants include pharmacists and allied staff involved in the delivery of clinical pain management services as well as patients. Eligible patients are prescribed either an outpatient opioid prescription greater than or equal to 90 mg morphine equivalent daily dose or a combination opioid-benzodiazepine regimen. They must also have an upcoming appointment in primary care. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the mixed methods work across the formative evaluation phases and informs the selection of activities included in implementation facilitation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of PIPS.

Discussion

This implementation study will provide important insight into the effectiveness of implementation facilitation to enhance uptake of a collaborative care program in primary care, which targets unsafe opioid prescribing practices.

SUBMITTER: Midboe AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6262952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis paper reports on a qualitative evaluation of a hybrid type II stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial using implementation facilitation to implement team-based care in the form of the collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in interdisciplinary outpatient mental health teams. The objective of this analysis is to compare the alignment of sites' clinical processes with the CCM elements at baseline (time 1) and after 12 months of implementation facilitation (time 2) from the perspective of providers.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews to assess the extent to which six CCM elements were in place: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. Interviews were transcribed and a priori CCM elements were coded using a directed content analysis approach at times 1 and 2. We sought consensus on, and compared, the extent to which each CCM element was in place at times 1 and 2.ResultsWe conducted 27 and 31 telephone interviews at times 1 and 2, respectively, with outpatient mental health providers at nine participating sites. At time 1 and time 2, three CCM elements were most frequently present across the sites: work role redesign, patient self-management support, and provider decision support. The CCM elements with increased implementation from time 1 to time 2 were work role redesign, patient self-management support, and clinical information systems. For two CCM elements, linkages to community resources and organizational/leadership support, some sites had increased implementation at time 2 compared to time 1, while others had reductions. For the provider decision support element, we saw little change in the extent of its implementation.ConclusionsSites increased the extent of implementation on several CCM elements. The most progress was made in the CCM elements where sites had CCM-aligned processes in place at time 1. Teams made progress on elements they could more easily control, such as work role redesign. Our results suggest that maximizing the benefits of CCM-based outpatient mental health care may require targeting resources and training toward specific CCM elements-especially in the use of clinical information systems and linking with community resources.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT02543840 .

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness of external facilitation (EF) vs external + internal facilitation (EF/IF), on uptake of a collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in community practices that were slower to implement under low-level implementation support.Study settingPrimary data were collected from 43 community practices in Michigan and Colorado at baseline and for 12 months following randomization.Study designSites that failed to meet a pre-established implementation benchmark after six months of low-level implementation support were randomized to add either EF or EF/IF support for up to 12 months. Key outcomes were change in number of patients receiving the CCM and number of patients receiving a clinically significant dose of the CCM. Moderators' analyses further examined whether comparative effectiveness was dependent on prerandomization adoption, number of providers trained or practice size. Facilitation log data were used for exploratory follow-up analyses.Data collectionSites reported monthly on number of patients that had received the CCM. Facilitation logs were completed by study EF and site IFs and shared with the study team.Principal findingsN = 21 sites were randomized to EF and 22 to EF/IF. Overall, EF/IF practices saw more uptake than EF sites after 12 months (ΔEF/IF-EF = 4.4 patients, 95% CI = 1.87-6.87). Moderators' analyses, however, revealed that it was only sites with no prerandomization uptake of the CCM (nonadopter sites) that saw significantly more benefit from EF/IF (ΔEF/IF-EF = 9.2 patients, 95% CI: 5.72, 12.63). For sites with prerandomization uptake (adopter sites), EF/IF offered no additional benefit (ΔEF/IF-EF = -0.9; 95% CI: -4.40, 2.60). Number of providers trained and practice size were not significant moderators.ConclusionsAlthough stepping up to the more intensive EF/IF did outperform EF overall, its benefit was limited to sites that failed to deliver any CCM under the low-level strategy. Once one or more providers were delivering the CCM, additional on-site personnel did not appear to add value to the implementation effort.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present to the emergency department (ED) after overdose, or seeking treatment for general medical conditions, their addiction, withdrawal symptoms, or complications of injection drug use, such as soft tissue infections. ED-initiated buprenorphine has been shown to be effective in increasing patient engagement in treatment compared with brief intervention with a facilitated referral or referral alone. However, adoption into practice has lagged behind need. To address this implementation challenge, we are evaluating the impact of implementation facilitation (IF) on the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine for OUD into practice.MethodsThis protocol describes a study that is being conducted through the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Center for the Clinical Trials Network. A hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study design is used to evaluate the effectiveness of a standard educational dissemination strategy versus IF on implementation (primary) and effectiveness (secondary) outcomes in four urban, academic EDs. Sites start with a standard 60-min "Grand Rounds" educational intervention describing the prevalence of ED patients with OUD, the evidence for opioid agonist treatment and for innovative interventions with ED-initiated buprenorphine; followed by a 1-year baseline evaluation period. Using a modified stepped wedge design, sites are randomly assigned to the IF intervention which is guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework to assess evidence, context, and facilitation-related factors impacting the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine. During the 6 months of IF through the 1-year IF evaluation period, external facilitators work with local stakeholders to tailor and refine a bundle of activities to meet the site's needs. The primary analyses compare the baseline evaluation period to the IF evaluation period (n = 120 patients with untreated OUD enrolled during each period) on (1) rates of provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine by ED providers with referral for ongoing medication (implementation outcome) and (2) rates of patient engagement in addiction treatment on the 30th day after the ED visit (effectiveness outcome). Finally, we will perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine if the effectiveness benefits are worth the additional costs.DiscussionResults will generate novel information regarding the impact of IF as a strategy to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03023930 first posted 1/10/2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03023930?term=0069&rank=1.

Project description:BackgroundFamily caregiver training decreases caregiver psychological burden and improves caregiver depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life. Caregivers FIRST is an evidence-based group skills training curriculum for family caregivers and was announced for national dissemination in partnership with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National Caregiver Support Program (CSP). Previous evaluations of Caregivers FIRST implementation highlighted that varying support was needed to successfully implement the program, ranging from minimal technical assistance to intensive assistance and support. However, we do not know the optimal level of support needed to inform cost-effective national scaling of the program. We describe a protocol for randomizing 24 non-adopting VA medical centers 1:1 to a tailored, high-touch implementation support or a standard, low-touch implementation support to test the primary hypothesis that high-touch support increases Caregivers FIRST penetration, fidelity, and adoption. Additionally, we describe the methods for evaluating the effect of Caregivers FIRST participation on Veteran outcomes using a quasi-experimental design and the methods for a business case analysis to examine cost of delivery differences among sites assigned to a low or high-touch implementation support.MethodsWe use a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study design enrolling VA medical centers that do not meet Caregivers FIRST adoption benchmarks following the announcement of the program as mandated within the CSP. Eligible medical centers will be randomized to receive a standard low-touch implementation support based on Replicating Effective Programs (REP) only or to an enhanced REP (high-touch) implementation support consisting of facilitation and tailored technical assistance. Implementation outcomes include penetration (primary), fidelity, and adoption at 12 months. Mixed methods will explore sites' perceptions and experiences of the high-touch intensification strategy. Additional analyses will include a patient-level effectiveness outcome (Veteran days at home and not in an institution) and a business case analysis using staffing and labor cost data.DiscussionThis pragmatic trial will lead to the development and refinement of implementation tools to support VA in spreading and sustaining Caregivers FIRST in the most efficient means possible.Trial registrationThis study was registered on April 8, 2022, at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT05319535).

Project description:BackgroundHepatitis C (HCV) is the most common infectious disease among people who inject drugs (PWID). Engaging PWID in harm reduction services, such as syringe service programs (SSPs), is critical to reduce HCV and HIV transmission. Additionally, testing for HIV and HCV among PWID is important to improve diagnosis and linkage to care. On March 1, 2018, Florida's only legal SSP implemented bundled opt-out HIV/HCV testing at enrollment. We aimed to examine the differences in HIV/HCV testing uptake before and after the implementation of the opt-out testing policy.MethodsMultivariable logistic regression was used to assess predictors of accepting HIV/HCV tests, controlling for opt-in and opt-out policy. Monthly estimates of the percent of participants accepting an HIV test, HCV test, or both were generated. Interrupted Time Series (ITS) analysis evaluated the immediate policy impact on level of uptake and trend in uptake over time for bundled HIV/HCV testing before and after the opt-out testing policy.ResultsThe total study period was 37 months between December 2016-January 2020 with 512 SSP participants 15 months prior and 547 SSP participants 22 months after implementation of bundled HIV/HCV opt-out testing. Significant predictors of accepting both HIV/HCV tests were cocaine injection (aOR = 2.36), self-reported HIV positive status (aOR = 0.39) and self-reported HCV positive status (aOR = 0.27). Based on the ITS results, there was a significant increase in uptake of HIV/HCV testing by 42.4% (95% CI: 26.2%-58.5%, p < 0.001) immediately after the policy change to opt-out testing.ConclusionBundled opt-out HIV/HCV testing substantially increased the percentage of SSP clients who received HIV and HCV rapid tests at enrollment into the program, and the effect remained stable across the 22 months post opt-out testing policy. Future investigation must assess PWID-level perspective of testing preferences and examine whether this testing approach improves HIV/HCV detection among PWID previously unaware of their status.

Project description:BACKGROUND:As the population ages, older hospitalized patients are at increased risk for hospital-acquired morbidity. The Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE) program is an evidence-informed early mobilization intervention that was previously evaluated in Ontario, Canada. The program was effective at improving mobilization rates and decreasing length of stay in academic hospitals. The aim of this study was to scale-up the program and conduct a replication study evaluating the impact of the evidence-informed mobilization intervention on various units in community hospitals within a different Canadian province. METHODS:The MOVE program was tailored to the local context at four community hospitals in Alberta, Canada. The study population was patients aged 65?years and older who were admitted to medicine, surgery, rehabilitation and intensive care units between July 2015 and July 2016. The primary outcome was patient mobilization measured by conducting visual audits twice a week, three times a day. The secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay obtained from hospital administrative data, and perceptions of the intervention assessed through a qualitative assessment. Using an interrupted time series design, the intervention was evaluated over three time periods (pre-intervention, during, and post-intervention). RESULTS:A total of 3601 patients [mean age 80.1?years (SD?=?8.4?years)] were included in the overall analysis. There was a significant increase in mobilization at the end of the intervention period compared to pre-intervention, with 6% more patients out of bed (95% confidence interval (CI) 1, 11; p-value?=?0.0173). A decreasing trend in median length of stay was observed, where patients on average stayed an estimated 3.59 fewer days (95%CI -15.06, 7.88) during the intervention compared to pre-intervention period. CONCLUSIONS:MOVE is a low-cost, effective and adaptable intervention that improves mobilization in older hospitalized patients. This intervention has been replicated and scaled up across various units and hospital settings.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveDespite growing interest in individualizing care, routine dialysis processes, including the interdisciplinary plan of care, often fail to account for patient-identified priorities. To better align dialysis care with patient priorities and improve care planning experiences, we implemented a person-centered care plan program at a single clinic. We also sought to gain insight into key implementation considerations and areas for program improvement.Study design6-month quality improvement project with research substudy.Setting & participants49 hemodialysis patients and 14 care team members at a North Carolina dialysis clinic.Quality improvement activitiesImplementation of My Dialysis Plan, a person-centered care plan program.OutcomesParticipant perspectives and care plan meeting characteristics (quality improvement); pre- to postprogram change in patient-reported autonomy support, patient-centeredness of care, and dialysis care individualization (research).Analytical approachWe used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide implementation and evaluation. We conducted pre-, intra-, and post-project interviews with clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and perceptions. We compared pre- and post-project care plan meeting content and patient-reported outcome survey scores.ResultsWe conducted 54 care plans with 49 patients. Overall, care teams successfully used My Dialysis Plan to elicit and link patient priorities to actionable aspects of dialysis care. Participants identified interdisciplinary team commitment, accountability, and the structured yet flexible meeting approach as key implementation elements. Throughout the project, stakeholder input guided program modifications (eg, implementation practices and resources) to better meet clinic needs, but follow-up on care plan-identified action items remained challenging. Among the 28 substudy participants, there was no difference in pre- to post-project patient-reported outcome survey scores.LimitationsSingle clinic implementation.ConclusionsMy Dialysis Plan has the potential to enhance dialysis care individualization and care plan experiences. Evaluation of program impact on patient-reported and clinical outcomes is needed.