Dataset Information

Sustaining implementation facilitation: a model for facilitator resilience.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Implementation facilitators enable healthcare staff to effectively implement change, yet little is known about their affective (e.g., emotional, mental, physical) experiences of facilitation. We propose an expansion to the Integrated Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework that introduces facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience to better assess facilitators' affective experiences.

Methods

We used an instrumental case study and facilitator data (logged reflections and debrief session notes) from the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching initiative to conceptualize facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience and to better understand the psychological impact of the facilitation process on facilitator effectiveness and implementation success.

Results

We define facilitation intensity as both the quantitative and/or qualitative measure of the volume of tasks and activities needed to engage and motivate recipients in implementation, and the psychological impact on the facilitator of conducting facilitation tasks and activities. We define facilitator resilience as the ability to cope with and adapt to the complexities of facilitation in order to effectively engage and motivate staff, while nurturing and sustaining hope, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping behaviors in oneself.

Conclusions

Facilitators' affective experience may help to identify potential relationships between the facilitation factors we propose (facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience). Future studies should test ways of reliably measuring facilitation intensity and facilitator resilience and specify their relationships in greater detail. By supporting facilitator resilience, healthcare delivery systems may help sustain the skilled facilitator workforce necessary for continued practice improvement.

Trial registration

The project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03063294 ) on February 24, 2017.

SUBMITTER: Olmos-Ochoa TT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8218441 | 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:Background:It is widely reported that facilitation can aid implementation of evidence-based practices. Although scholars agree that facilitators need a diverse range of skills, only a few retrospective studies have identified some of these. During the test of a facilitation strategy within the context of a VA initiative to implement evidence-based care delivery models, we documented the skills an expert external facilitator transferred to two initially novice internal regional facilitators. Ours is the first study to explore facilitation skills as they are being applied and transferred. Methods:Facilitators applied the strategy at eight primary care clinics that lacked implementation capacity in two VA networks. We conducted monthly debriefing interviews over a 30-month period and documented these in detailed notes. External facilitator interviews focused specifically on training and mentoring internal facilitators and the skills that she transferred. We also conducted, recorded, and transcribed two qualitative interviews with each facilitator and queried them about training content and process. We conducted a content analysis of the data, using deductive and inductive methods, to identify skills the external facilitator helped internal facilitators learn. We also explored the complexity of facilitation skills and grouped them into overarching skillsets. Results:The external facilitator helped internal facilitators learn 22 complex skills; with few exceptions, these skills were not unique but overlapped with one another. We clustered 21 of these into 5 groups of overarching skillsets: (1) building relationships and creating a supportive environment, (2) changing the system of care and the structure and processes that support it, (3) transferring knowledge and skills and creating infrastructure support for ongoing learning, (4) planning and leading change efforts, and (5) assessing people, processes, and outcomes and creating infrastructure for program monitoring. Conclusions:This study documented a broad range of implementation facilitation skills that are complex and overlapping. Findings suggest that studies and initiatives planning or applying facilitation as an implementation strategy should ensure that facilitators have or have the opportunity to learn the skills they need. Because facilitation skills are complex, the use of didactic methods alone may not be sufficient for transferring skills; future work should explore other methods and techniques.

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:ImportanceEmergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022.ExposureA 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed.ResultsA total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits).Conclusions and relevanceIn this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

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:BackgroundPractice facilitation is a method used to address the complexity associated with implementation of innovations into primary care. To provide support, we propose that the i-PARIHS (Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework could support practice facilitators. The i-PARIHS framework positions facilitation as a core element for successful implementation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide support to practice facilitators whilst simultaneously gaining feedback on what facilitators in practice need in regard to support with operationalising the i-PARIHS framework in practice.MethodsThis study involved the delivery of a 1-h workshop on the i-PARIHS framework at the 2018 International Conference on Practice Facilitation. The authors provided an overview of the i-PARIHS framework, how it can be used to support the facilitation of innovations into practice, and finally, attendees worked through facilitation scenarios and applied an i-PARIHS resource. At the end of the workshop, attendees were invited to participant in the research component, by completing a post-workshop survey on the workshop content and the i-PARIHS resource.ResultsParticipants were highly engaged and enthusiastic about the workshop. Participants reported that an introduction to implementation frameworks was valuable and the example of how the i-PARIHS framework had been used in a previous project was helpful. Overall, this study identifies how framework informed facilitation helped participants feel more equipped to conduct systematic facilitation and that the development of i-PARIHS resources would be helpful in their everyday work.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the existence of implementation frameworks is not sufficient to provide support to those who facilitate in the real world. The current study introduced practice facilitators to the i-PARIHS framework, and the findings demonstrate the need to develop and refine existing i-PARIHS resources to support facilitation. Specifically, the next steps stemming from this study will be to (i) continue to utilize workshops for sharing and refining tools, (ii) allocate development efforts to tools that assist with planning, (iii) focus on tool provision mechanisms that keep user-friendliness in mind, and (iv) translate the i-PARIHS facilitation checklist from academic language into more practical and user-friendly language.