Dataset Information

Successful Trial of Practice Facilitation for Plan, Do, Study, Act Quality Improvement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Practice facilitation (PF) is a promising but relatively new intervention supporting data-driven practice change. There is a need to better detail research-based facilitation methods, which must balance intervention fidelity and time restrictions with the flexibility required for the intervention. As part of a multi-level 4-armed cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT), 32 rural primary care practices received PF for 1 year. We evaluated the feasibility of having facilitators guide practices to perform 4 key driver domain activities, implemented as Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, to better understand facilitation "exposure." We describe the intervention and activity length such that our experiences may be useful to other PF research efforts.

Methods

Thirty-two practices serving rural patients involved in the Southeastern Collaboration to Improvement Blood Pressure Control engaged with a facilitator to develop and implement PDSAs nested within key drivers of change domains. Numbers of months practices worked on activities deemed most likely to be sustained were captured along with practice satisfaction data.

Results

All practices engaged in at least 4 domain-level activities, and 59% of the PDSAs were active for at least 3 months. There was variation by domain in the average length of the PDSA activities. Ninety-seven percent (31 of 32) of practices recommended similarly structured facilitation services to other primary care practices, and 84% (27 of 32) noted substantive changes in their care processes.

Conclusion

In this trial, it was feasible for PFs to engage practices in at least 4 Key Driver quality improvement activities within 1 year, which will inform PF methods and protocol development in future trials.

SUBMITTER: Sutton KF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8571730 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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 multicomponent implementation strategy used to improve the capacity for practices to address care quality and implementation gaps. We sought to assess whether practice facilitators use of coaching strategies aimed at improving self-sufficiency were associated with improved implementation of quality improvement (QI) interventions in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland Study.MethodsWe mapped 27 practice facilitation activities to a framework that classifies practice facilitation strategies by the degree to which the practice develops its own process expertise (Doing Tasks, Project Management, Consulting, Teaching, and Coaching) and then used regression tree analysis to group practices by facilitation strategies experienced. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess whether practice groups identified by regression tree analysis were associated with successful implementation of QI interventions and practice and study context variables.ResultsThere was no association between number of strategies performed by practice facilitators and number of QI interventions implemented. Regression tree analysis identified 4 distinct practice groups based on the number of Project Management and Coaching strategies performed. The median number of interventions increased across the groups. Practices receiving > 4 project management and > 6 coaching activities implemented a median of 17 of 35 interventions. Groups did not differ significantly by practice size, association with a healthcare network, or practice type. Statistically significant differences in practice location, number and duration of facilitator visits, and early study termination emerged among the groups, compared to the overall practice population.ConclusionsPractices that engage in more coaching-based strategies with practice facilitators are more likely to implement more QI interventions, and practice receptivity to these strategies was not dependent on basic practice demographics.

Project description:BackgroundThe past decade has seen increasing opportunities and efforts to integrate quality improvement into health care. Practice facilitation is a proven strategy to support redesign and improvement in primary care practices that focuses on building organizational capacity for continuous improvement. Practice leadership, staff, and practice facilitators all play important roles in supporting quality improvement in primary care. However, little is known about their perspectives on the context, enablers, barriers, and strategies that impact quality improvement initiatives.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a framework to enable assessment of contextual factors, challenges, and strategies that impact practice facilitation, clinical measure performance, and the implementation of quality improvement interventions. We also illustrated the application of the framework using a real-world case study.MethodsWe developed the TITO (task, individual, technology, and organization) framework by conducting participatory stakeholder workshops and incorporating their perspectives to identify enablers and barriers to quality improvement and practice facilitation. We conducted a case study using a mixed methods approach to demonstrate the use of the framework and describe practice facilitation and factors that impact quality improvement in a primary care practice that participated in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland study.ResultsThe proposed framework was used to organize and analyze different stakeholders' perspectives and key factors based on framework domains. The case study showed that practice leaders, staff, and practice facilitators all influenced the success of the quality improvement program. However, these participants faced different challenges and used different strategies. The framework showed that barriers stemmed from patients' social determinants of health, a lack of staff and time, and unsystematic facilitation resources, while enablers included practice culture, staff buy-in, implementation of effective practice facilitation strategies, practice capacity for change, and shared complementary resources from similar, ongoing programs.ConclusionsOur framework provided a useful and generalizable structure to guide and support assessment of future practice facilitation projects, quality improvement initiatives, and health care intervention implementation studies. The practice leader, staff, and practice facilitator all saw value in the quality improvement program and practice facilitation. Practice facilitators are key liaisons to help the quality improvement program; they help all stakeholders work toward a shared target and leverage tailored strategies. Taking advantage of resources from competing, yet complementary, programs as additional support may accelerate the effective achievement of quality improvement goals. Practice facilitation-supported quality improvement programs may be opportunities to assist primary care practices in achieving improved quality of care through focused and targeted efforts. The case study demonstrated how our framework can support a better understanding of contextual factors for practice facilitation, which could enable well-prepared and more successful quality improvement programs for primary care practices. Combining implementation science and informatics thinking, our TITO framework may facilitate interdisciplinary research in both fields.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with serious mental illness (SMI) have poorer physical health and reduced lifespans compared to the general population. Reasons for this are complex, but one important area is the identification and treatment of physical health conditions. In England, services are structured into primary and secondary care; physical and mental secondary health services are separate. This often leads to a lack of co-ordination of care, with people missing the screening and treatment they need. People with SMI may find accessing physical health services more difficult due to the impact of their symptoms and/or a lack of social support. When they do access physical care, there may be 'diagnostic overshadowing' where physical health concerns are put down to a mental health diagnosis. Creating tools to support people with SMI to assume more control of their physical health may help to ameliorate some of these problems. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of a service user-held Physical health plan (PHP) for secondary mental health service users to determine whether its use increases uptake of physical health services.MethodsWe will undertake a pilot quality improvement (QI) study to test the use of the PHP. The development of the PHP is described. A Theory of Change (ToC) has been developed which we will test to understand how the PHP is used, using focus groups at the beginning of the study. We will then pilot the use of the PHP for 6 months in two community mental health teams to find out how people use it, what actions are taken, and if it increases uptake of physical health care. We will use the RE-AIM implementation framework to guide the evaluation. After the pilot, we will undertake interviews with service users and clinical staff to elicit their views on using the PHP.DiscussionThis study uses QI methodology and an implementation framework to test a novel intervention for people with SMI. If successful, the intervention will support people with SMI to access physical health services. The study will inform the design of a larger-scale definitive RCT.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03178279. Registered date: 05/06/2017.

Project description:BackgroundWe evaluated a facilitation strategy to help clinical sites likely to experience challenges implement evidence-based Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) care models within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative. This article describes our assessment of whether implementation facilitation (IF) can foster development of high quality PC-MHI programs that adhere to evidence, are sustainable and likely to improve clinical practices and outcomes.MethodsUtilizing a matched pair design, we conducted a qualitative descriptive evaluation of the IF strategy in sixteen VA primary care clinics. To assess program quality and adherence to evidence, we conducted one-hour structured telephone interviews, at two time points, with clinicians and leaders who knew the most about the clinics' programs. We then created structured summaries of the interviews that VA national PC-MHI experts utilized to rate the programs on four dimensions (overall quality, adherence to evidence, sustainability and level of improvement).ResultsAt first assessment, seven of eight IF sites and four of eight comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Our qualitative assessment suggested that experts rated IF sites' programs higher than comparison sites' programs with one exception. At final assessment, all eight IF but only five comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Again, experts rated IF sites' programs higher than their matched comparison sites with one exception. Over time, all ratings improved in five of seven IF sites and two of three comparison sites.ConclusionsImplementing complex evidence-based programs, particularly in settings that lack infrastructure, resources and support for such efforts, is challenging. Findings suggest that a blend of external expert and internal regional facilitation strategies that implementation scientists have developed and tested can improve PC-MHI program uptake, quality and adherence to evidence in primary care clinics with these challenges. However, not all sites showed these improvements. To be successful, facilitators likely need at least a moderate level of leaders' support, including provision of basic resources. Additionally, we found that IF and strength of leadership structure may have a synergistic effect on ability to implement higher quality and evidence-based programs.