Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of external vs blended facilitation on collaborative care model implementation in slow-implementer community practices.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To 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 setting

Primary data were collected from 43 community practices in Michigan and Colorado at baseline and for 12 months following randomization.

Study design

Sites 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 collection

Sites 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 findings

N = 21 sites were randomized to EF and 22 to EF/IF. Overall, EF/IF practices saw more uptake than EF sites after 12 months (Δ_EF/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 (Δ_EF/IF-EF = 9.2 patients, 95% CI: 5.72, 12.63). For sites with prerandomization uptake (adopter sites), EF/IF offered no additional benefit (Δ_EF/IF-EF = -0.9; 95% CI: -4.40, 2.60). Number of providers trained and practice size were not significant moderators.

Conclusions

Although 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.

SUBMITTER: Smith SN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7704469 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Facilitation is a key strategy that may contribute to successful implementation of healthcare innovations. In blended facilitation, external facilitators (EFs) guide and support internal facilitators (IFs) in directing implementation processes. Developers of the i-PARIHS framework propose that successful facilitation requires project management, team/process, and influencing/negotiating skills. It is unclear what IF skills are most important in real-world settings, which could inform recruitment and training efforts. As prior qualitative studies of IF skills have only interviewed IFs, the perspectives of their EF partners are needed. Furthermore, little is known regarding the distribution of implementation tasks between IFs and EFs, which could impact sustainability once external support is removed. In the context of an implementation trial, we therefore: 1) evaluated IFs' use of i-PARIHS facilitation skills, from EFs' perspectives; 2) identified attributes of IFs not encompassed within the i-PARIHS skills; and 3) investigated the relative contributions of IFs and EFs during facilitation. METHODS:Analyses were conducted within a hybrid type II trial utilizing blended facilitation to implement the collaborative chronic care model within mental health teams of nine VA medical centers. Each site committed one team and an IF to weekly process design meetings and additional implementation activities over 12?months. Three EFs worked with three sites each. Following study completion, the EFs completed semi-structured qualitative interviews reflecting on the facilitation process, informed by the i-PARIHS facilitation skill areas. Interviews were analyzed via directed content analysis. RESULTS:EFs emphasized the importance of IFs having strong project management, team/process, and influencing/negotiating skills. Prior experience in these areas and a mental health background were also benefits. Personal characteristics (e.g., flexible, assertive) were described as critical, particularly when faced with conflict. EFs discussed the importance of clear delineation of EF/IF roles, and the need to shift facilitation responsibilities to IFs. CONCLUSIONS:Key IF skills, according to EFs, are aligned with i-PARIHS recommendations, but IFs' personal characteristics were also emphasized as important factors. Findings highlight traits to consider when selecting IFs and potential training areas (e.g., conflict management). EFs and IFs must determine an appropriate distribution of facilitation tasks to ensure long-term sustainability of practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov, September 7, 2015, #NCT02543840.

Project description:BackgroundRelatively little guidance exists on how to use virtual implementation facilitation to successfully implement evidence-based practices and innovations into clinical programs. Yet virtual methods are increasingly common. They have potentially wider reach, emergent public health situations necessitate their use, and restrictions on resources can make them more attractive. We therefore outline a set of principles for virtual external implementation facilitation and a series of recommendations based on extensive experience successfully using virtual external implementation facilitation in a national program.Model and recommendationsSuccess in virtual external implementation facilitation may be achieved by facilitators applying three overarching principles: pilot everything, incorporate a model, and prioritize metacognition. Five practical principles also help: plan in advance, communicate in real time, build relationships, engage participants, and construct a virtual room for participants. We present eight concrete suggestions for enacting the practical principles: (1) assign key facilitation roles to facilitation team members to ensure the program runs smoothly; (2) create small cohorts of participants so they can have meaningful interactions; (3) provide clarity and structure for all participant interactions; (4) structure program content to ensure key points are described, reinforced, and practiced; (5) use visuals to supplement audio content; (6) build activities into the agenda that enable participants to immediately apply knowledge at their own sites, separate from the virtual experience; (7) create backup plans whenever possible; and (8) engage all participants in the program. These principles represent a novel conceptualization of virtual external implementation facilitation, giving structure to a process that has been, to date, inadequately described. The associated actions are demonstrably useful in supporting the principles and offer teams interested in virtual external implementation facilitation concrete methods by which to ensure success. Our examples stem from experiences in healthcare. But the principles can, in theory, be applied to virtual external implementation facilitation regardless of setting, as they and the associated actions are not setting specific.

Project description:BackgroundFacilitation has been identified in the literature as a potentially key component of successful implementation. It has not, however, either been well-defined or well-studied. Significant questions remain about the operational definition of facilitation and about the relationship of facilitation to other interventions, especially to other change agent roles when used in multi-faceted implementation projects. Researchers who are part of the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) are actively exploring various approaches and processes, including facilitation, to enable implementation of best practices in the Veterans Health Administration health care system - the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. This paper describes a systematic, retrospective evaluation of implementation-related facilitation experiences within QUERI, a quality improvement program developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs.MethodsA post-hoc evaluation was conducted through a series of semi-structured interviews to examine the concept of facilitation across several multi-site QUERI implementation studies. The interview process is based on a technique developed in the field of education, which systematically enhances learning through experience by stimulating recall and reflection regarding past complex activities. An iterative content analysis approach relative to a set of conceptually-based interview questions was used for data analysis.FindingsFindings suggest that facilitation, within an implementation study initiated by a central change agency, is a deliberate and valued process of interactive problem solving and support that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and a supportive interpersonal relationship. Facilitation was described primarily as a distinct role with a number of potentially crucial behaviors and activities. Data further suggest that external facilitators were likely to use or integrate other implementation interventions, while performing this problem-solving and supportive role. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation provides evidence to suggest that facilitation could be considered a distinct implementation intervention, just as audit and feedback, educational outreach, or similar methods are considered to be discrete interventions. As such, facilitation should be well-defined and explicitly evaluated for its perceived usefulness within multi-intervention implementation projects. Additionally, researchers should better define the specific contribution of facilitation to the success of implementation in different types of projects, different types of sites, and with evidence and innovations of varying levels of strength and complexity.

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:BackgroundOver 1100 veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs)-those with formal training who support other veterans with similar diagnoses. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from their usual placement in mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PSs in PACTs, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in new settings.MethodsThis study was a cluster-randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial to test the impact of minimal implementation support vs. facilitated implementation on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT over 2 years. Twenty-five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) were recruited to reassign mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 7, 10, 8) over 6-month blocks were matched and randomized to each study condition. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert worked with site stakeholders through a site visit and regular calls, and provided performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Minimal implementation sites received a webinar and access to the VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions were compared on PS workload data and veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews collected information on perceived usefulness of the PS services.ResultsIn the first year, sites that received facilitation had higher numbers of unique veterans served and a higher number of PS visits, although the groups did not differ after the second year. Also, sites receiving external facilitation started delivering PS services more quickly than minimal support sites. All sites in the external facilitation condition continued in the pilot into the second year, whereas two of the sites in the minimal assistance condition dropped out after the first year. There were no differences between groups on veterans' outcomes-activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Most veterans were very positive about the help they received as evidenced in the qualitative interviews.DiscussionThese findings demonstrate that external facilitation can be effective in supporting the implementation of PSs in primary care settings. The lack of significant differences across conditions after the second year highlights the positive outcomes associated with active facilitation, while also raising the important question of whether longer-term success may require some level of ongoing facilitation and implementation support.Trial registrationThis project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).

Project description:BackgroundFacilitation is a complex, relational implementation strategy that guides change processes. Facilitators engage in multiple activities and tailor efforts to local contexts. How this work is coordinated and shared among multiple, external actors and the contextual factors that prompt and moderate facilitators to tailor activities have not been well-described.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to improve the quality of transient ischemic attack care. Six sites in the Veterans Health Administration received external facilitation (EF) before and during a 1-year active implementation period. We examined how EF was employed and activated. Data analysis included prospective logs of facilitator correspondence with sites (160 site-directed episodes), stakeholder interviews (a total of 78 interviews, involving 42 unique individuals), and collaborative call debriefs (n=22) spanning implementation stages. Logs were descriptively analyzed across facilitators, sites, time periods, and activity types. Interview transcripts were coded for content related to EF and themes were identified. Debriefs were reviewed to identify instances of and utilization of EF during site critical junctures.ResultsMulti-tiered EF was supported by two groups (site-facing quality improvement [QI] facilitators and the implementation support team) that were connected by feedback loops. Each site received an average of 24 episodes of site-directed EF; most of the EF was delivered by the QI nurse. For each site, site-directed EF frequently involved networking (45%), preparation and planning (44%), process monitoring (44%), and/or education (36%). EF less commonly involved audit and feedback (20%), brainstorming solutions (16%), and/or stakeholder engagement (5%). However, site-directed EF varied widely across sites and time periods in terms of these facilitation types. Site participants recognized the responsiveness of the QI nurse and valued her problem-solving, feedback, and accountability support. External facilitators used monitoring and dialogue to intervene by facilitating redirection during challenging periods of uncertainty about project direction and feasibility for sites. External facilitators, in collaboration with the implementation support team, successfully used strategies tailored to diverse local contexts, including networking, providing data, and brainstorming solutions.ConclusionsMulti-tiered facilitation capitalizing on emergent feedback loops allowed for tailored, site-directed facilitation. Critical juncture cases illustrate the complexity of EF and the need to often try multiple strategies in combination to facilitate implementation progress.Trial registrationThe Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurological Symptoms (PREVENT) is a registered trial ( NCT02769338 ), May 11, 2016-prospectively registered.

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.