Dataset Information

Implementation of peer specialist services in VA primary care: a cluster randomized trial on the impact of external facilitation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Over 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

In 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.

Discussion

These 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 registration

This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).

SUBMITTER: Chinman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8183089 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver 1100 Veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs). PSs are Veterans with formal training who provide support to other Veterans with similar diagnoses, primarily in mental health settings. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) 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 PS in PACT, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in VHA settings. We present the protocol for this cluster-randomized hybrid type II trial to test the impact of standard implementation (receive minimal assistance) vs. facilitated implementation (receive outside assistance) on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT.MethodsA VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group is recruiting 25 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers to reassign a mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 8, 8, 9) beginning over 6-month blocks will be matched and randomized to either standard or facilitated implementation. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert works with site stakeholders through a site visit, regular calls, and performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Standard implementation sites will receive a webinar and access the Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions will be compared on PS workload data, fidelity to the PS model of service delivery, team functioning, and Veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews will collect information on implementation barriers and facilitators.DiscussionThis evaluation will provide critical data to guide administrators and VHA policy makers on future deployment of PSs, as their role has been expanding beyond mental health. In addition, development of novel implementation strategies (facilitation tailored to PSs) and the use of new tools (peer fidelity) can be models for monitoring and supporting deployment of PSs throughout VHA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).

Project description:There is a need to find innovative approaches for translating best practices for chronic disease care into daily primary care practice routines. Primary care plays a crucial role in the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. There is, however, a substantive care gap, and many challenges exist in implementing evidence-based care. The Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project is a pragmatic trial designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care practices using practice outreach facilitation.The IDOCC project is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial in which Practice Outreach Facilitators work with primary care practices to improve cardiovascular disease prevention and management for patients at highest risk. Primary care practices in a large health region in Eastern Ontario, Canada, were eligible to participate. The intervention consists of regular monthly meetings with the Practice Outreach Facilitator over a one- to two-year period. Starting with audit and feedback, consensus building, and goal setting, the practices are supported in changing practice behavior by incorporating chronic care model elements. These elements include (a) evidence-based decision support for providers, (b) delivery system redesign for practices, (c) enhanced self-management support tools provided to practices to help them engage patients, and (d) increased community resource linkages for practices to enhance referral of patients. The primary outcome is a composite score measured at the level of the patient to represent each practice's adherence to evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular care. Qualitative analysis of the Practice Outreach Facilitators' written narratives of their ongoing practice interactions will be done. These textual analyses will add further insight into understanding critical factors impacting project implementation.This pragmatic, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with both quantitative and process evaluations demonstrates innovative methods of implementing large-scale quality improvement and evidence-based approaches to care delivery. This is the first Canadian study to examine the impact of a large-scale multifaceted cardiovascular quality-improvement program in primary care. It is anticipated that through the evaluation of IDOCC, we will demonstrate an effective, practical, and sustainable means of improving the cardiovascular health of patients across Canada.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808.

Project description:BackgroundThrough Community Care Networks (CCNs) implemented with the VA MISSION Act, VA expanded provider contracting and instituted network adequacy standards for Veterans' community care.ObjectiveTo determine whether early CCN implementation impacted community primary care (PC) appointment wait times overall, and by rural/urban and PC shortage area (HPSA) status.DesignUsing VA administrative data from February 2019 through February 2020 and a difference-in-differences approach, we compared wait times before and after CCN implementation for appointments scheduled by VA facilities that did (CCN appointments) and did not (comparison appointments) implement CCNs. We ran regression models with all appointments, and stratified by rural/urban and PC HPSA status. All models adjusted for Veteran characteristics and VA facility-level clustering.Appointments13,720 CCN and 40,638 comparison appointments.Main measuresWait time, measured as number of days from authorization to use community PC to a Veteran's first corresponding appointment.Key resultsOverall, unadjusted wait times increased by 35.7 days ([34.4, 37.1] 95% CI) after CCN implementation. In adjusted analysis, comparison wait times increased on average 33.7 days ([26.3, 41.2] 95% CI, p < 0.001) after CCN implementation; there was no significant difference for CCN wait times (across-group mean difference: 5.4 days, [-3.8, 14.6] 95% CI, p = 0.25). In stratified analyses, comparison wait time increases ranged from 29.6 days ([20.8, 38.4] 95% CI, p < 0.001) to 42.1 days ([32.9, 51.3] 95% CI, p > 0.001) after CCN implementation, while additional differences for CCN appointments ranged from 13.4 days ([3.5, 23.4] 95% CI, p = 0.008) to -15.1 days ([-30.1, -0.1] 95% CI, p = 0.05) for urban and PC HPSA appointments, respectively.ConclusionsAfter early CCN implementation, community PC wait times increased sharply at VA facilities that did and did not implement CCNs, regardless of rural/urban or PC HPSA status, suggesting community care demand likely overwhelmed VA resources such that CCNs had limited impact.

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:ImportancePeer relationships may motivate physicians to aspire to high professional standards but have not been a major focus of quality improvement efforts.ObjectiveTo determine whether peer relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists formed during training motivate improved specialist care for patients.Design, setting, and participantsIn this quasi-experimental study, difference-in-differences analysis was used to estimate differences in experiences with specialist care reported by patients of the same PCP for specialists who did vs did not co-train with the PCP, controlling for any differences in patient ratings of the same specialists in the absence of co-training ties. Specialist visits resulting from PCP referrals from 2016 to 2019 in a large health system were analyzed, including a subset of undirected referrals in which PCPs did not specify a specialist. Data were collected from January 2016 to December 2019 and analyzed from March 2020 to October 2022.ExposureThe exposure was PCP-specialist overlap in training (medical school or postgraduate medical) at the same institution for at least 1 year (co-training).Main outcomes and measuresComposite patient experience rating of specialist care constructed from Press Ganey's Medical Practice Survey.ResultsOf 9920 specialist visits for 8655 patients (62.9% female; mean age, 57.4 years) with 502 specialists in 13 specialties, 3.1% (306) involved PCP-specialist dyads with a co-training tie. Co-training ties between PCPs and specialists were associated with a 9.0 percentage point higher adjusted composite patient rating of specialist care (95% CI, 5.6-12.4 percentage points; P < .001), analogous to improvement from the median to the 91st percentile of specialist performance. This association was stronger for PCP-specialist dyads with full temporal overlap in training (same class or cohort) and consistently strong for 9 of 10 patient experience items, including clarity of communication and engagement in shared decision-making. In secondary analyses of objective markers of altered specialist practice in an expanded sample of visits not limited by the availability of patient experience data, co-training was associated with changes in medication prescribing, suggesting behavioral changes beyond interpersonal communication. Patient characteristics varied minimally by co-training status of PCP-specialist dyads. Results were similar in analyses restricted to undirected referrals (in which PCPs did not specify a specialist). Concordance between PCPs and specialists in physician age, sex, medical school graduation year, and training institution (without requiring temporal overlap) was not associated with better care experiences.Conclusions and relevanceIn this quasi-experimental study, PCP-specialist co-training elicited changes in specialist care that substantially improved patient experiences, suggesting potential gains from strategies encouraging the formation of stronger physician-peer relationships.

Project description:BackgroundHigh clinical variation has been linked to decreased quality of care, increased costs, and decreased patient satisfaction. We present the implementation and analysis of a peer comparison intervention to reduce clinical variation within a large primary care network.ObjectiveEvaluate existing variation in radiology ordering within a primary care network and determine whether peer comparison feedback reduces variation or changes practice patterns.DesignRadiology ordering data was analyzed to evaluate baseline variation in imaging rates. A utilization dashboard was shared monthly with providers for a year, and imaging rates pre- and post-intervention were retrospectively analyzed.ParticipantsProviders within the primary care network spanning 1,358,644 outpatient encounters and 159 providers over a 3-year period.InterventionsThe inclusion of radiology utilization data as part of a provider's monthly quality and productivity dashboards. This information allows providers to compare their practice patterns with those of their colleagues.Main measuresWe measured provider imaging rates, stratified by modality, as well as order variation over time.Key resultsWe observed significant variation in imaging rates among providers in the network, with the top decile ordering an average of 4.2 times more than the lowest decile in the two years prior to intervention. Provider experience and training were not significantly associated with imaging utilization. In the first year after sharing utilization data with providers, we saw a 17.3% decrease in median imaging rate (p < 0.001) and a 21.4% reduction in provider variation between top and bottom deciles. Median ordering rate for more costly cross-sectional imaging, including CT, MRI, and nuclear medicine studies, decreased by 30.4% (p < 0.001), 20.2% (p = 0.008), and 41.8% (p = 0.002), respectively.ConclusionsPeer comparison feedback can shape provider imaging behavior even in the absence of targets or financial incentives. Peer comparison is a low-touch, low-cost intervention for influencing provider ordering and may have applicability in other clinical areas.

Project description:ImportanceUnhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is the fourth most preventable cause of death in the US. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians routinely screen all adults 18 years and older for UAU; however, this preventive service is poorly implemented.ObjectiveTo determine if practice facilitation improved delivery of the recommended care for UAU compared to usual care.Design, setting, and participantsThis practice-level cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted across diverse and representative primary care practices throughout Virginia. A total of 76 primary care practices enrolled between October 2019 and January 2023.InterventionPractices received immediate (intervention) or 6-month delayed (control) practice facilitation, which included tailored educational sessions, workflow management, and tools for addressing UAU.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included the increase in recommended screening for UAU, brief interventions, referral for counseling, and medication treatment. Data were collected via medical record review (structured and free text data) and transcripts of practice facilitator sessions and exits interviews.ResultsOf the 76 primary care practices enrolled, 32 were randomized to intervention and 35 to control; 11 789 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [16.3] years; 61.1% women) were randomly selected for analysis, with patient demographics similar to Virginia at large. From baseline to 6 months after intervention, screening with a validated instrument increased from 2.1% (95% CI, 0.5%-8.4%) to 35.5% (95% CI, 11.5%-69.9%) in the intervention group compared to 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.8%) to 1.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.8%) in the control group (P < .001). Brief office-based interventions for the intervention group increased from 26.2% (95% CI, 14.2%-45.8%) to 62.6% (95% CI, 43.6%-78.3%) vs 45.5% (95% CI, 28.0%-64.1%) to 55.1% (95% CI, 36.5%-72.3%) in the control group (P = .008). Identification of UAU, referral for counseling, and medication treatment had similar changes for both groups. Qualitative analyses of transcripts revealed that few clinicians understood the preventive service prior to practice facilitation, but at the end most felt much more competent and confident with screening and brief intervention for UAU.Conclusions and relevanceThis cluster randomized clinical trial demonstrated that practice facilitation can help primary care practices to better implement screening and counseling for UAU into their routine workflow. Effective primary care practice implementation interventions such as this can have a profound effect on the health of communities. Given the number of people that the participating practices care for, this intervention resulted in an additional 114 604 patients being screened annually for UAU who would not have been otherwise.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023.