Search

Purpose: Visitor restriction policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among patients and clinicians were widespread during the pandemic, resulting in the exclusion of caregivers at key points of cancer care and treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to explore how visitor restrictions impacted cancer treatment decision-making and care from patient and physician perspectives. Methods: Sixty-seven interviews, including 48 cancer patients and 19 cancer and palliative care physicians from four academic cancer centers in the USA between August 2020 and July 2021. Results: Visitor restrictions that prevented caregivers from participating in clinic appointments and perioperative hospital care created challenges in cancer care that spanned three domains: practical, social, and informational. We identified eight themes that characterized challenges within the three domains across all three groups, and that these challenges had negative emotional and psychological consequences for both groups. Physicians perceived that patients’ negative experiences due to lack of support through the physical presence of caregivers may have worsened patient outcomes. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate the tripartite structure of the therapeutic relationship in cancer care with caregivers providing critical support in the decision-making and care process to both patients and physicians. Caregiver absences led to practical, psychosocial, and informational burdens on both groups, and likely increased the risk of burnout among physicians. Our findings suggest that the quality of cancer care can be enhanced by engaging caregivers and promoting their physical presence during clinical encounters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is an implementation theory that can be used to explain how and why implementation strategies work or not in particular circumstances. We used it to understand the mechanisms that lead to the adoption and routinization of palliative care within hemodialysis centers. Methods: We employed a longitudinal, mixed methods approach to comprehensively evaluate the implementation of palliative care practices among ten hemodialysis centers participating in an Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough- Series learning collaborative. Qualitative methods included longitudinal observations of collaborative activities, and interviews with implementers at the end of the study. We used an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis informed by NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) and implementation outcomes. The NoMAD survey, which measures NPT constructs, was completed by implementers at each hemodialysis center during early and late implementation. Results: The four mechanisms posited in NPT had a dynamic and layered relationship during the implementation process. Collaborative participants participated because they believed in the value and legitimacy of palliative care for patients receiving hemodialysis and thus had high levels of cognitive participation at the start. Didactic Learning Sessions were important for building practice coherence, and sense-making was solidified through testing new skills in practice and first-hand observation during coaching visits by an expert. Collective action was hampered by limited time among team members and practical issues such as arranging meetings with patients. Reflexive monitoring of the positive benefit to patient and family experiences was key in shifting mindsets from disease-centric towards a patient-centered model of care. NoMAD survey scores showed modest improvement over time, with collective action having the lowest scores. Conclusions: NPT was a useful framework for understanding the implementation of palliative care practices within hemodialysis centers. We found a nonlinear relationship among the mechanisms which is reflected in our model of implementation of palliative care practices through a learning collaborative. These findings suggest that the implementation of complex practices such as palliative care may be more successful through iterative learning and practice opportunities as the mechanisms for change are layered and mutually reinforcing. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04125537. Registered 14 October 2019 – Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid adaptations among palliative care services, but it is unclear how these adaptations vary in relation to their unique organizational contexts. Aim: Understand how the pandemic impacted the implementation of new and existing palliative care programs in diverse hospital systems using the Dynamic Sustainability Framework. Design: Twelve in-depth interviews with 15 key informants representing palliative care programs from seven hospital systems between April and June 2020. Setting: Public, not-for-profit private, community, and academic teaching hospitals in the San Francisco Bay Area with existing palliative care programs that were expanding services to new clinical areas (e.g. new outpatient clinic or community-based care). Results: Six themes characterized how palliative care programs were impacted and adapted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: palliative care involvement in preparing for surge, increased emphasis on advance care planning, advocating for visitors for dying patients, providing emotional support to clinicians, adopting virtual approaches to care, and gaps in chaplaincy support. There was variation in how new and existing programs were able to adapt to early pandemic stresses; systems with new outpatient programs struggled to utilize their programs effectively during the crisis onset. Conclusions: The fit between palliative care programs and practice setting was critical to program resiliency during the early stages of the pandemic. Reconceptualizing the Dynamic Sustainability Framework to reflect a bidirectional relationship between ecological system, practice setting, and intervention levels might better guide implementers and researchers in understanding how ecological/macro changes can influence interventions on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though patients undergoing treatment for upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers frequently experience a range of sequelae and disease recurrence, patients often do not receive specialty palliative care soon after diagnosis and it is unknown in what ways they may benefit. To understand patient experiences of specialty palliative care in the perioperative period for patients seeking curative intent upper GI oncologic surgery. As part of a randomized controlled trial, we conducted in-depth interviews between November 2019 and July 2021 with 23 patients in the intervention arm who were undergoing curative intent treatment for upper GI cancers and who were also followed by the specialty palliative care team. We found five themes that characterized patient experiences and perceptions of specialty palliative care. Patients typically had limited prior awareness of palliative care (theme 1), but during the study, came to understand it as a "talking" intervention (theme 2). Patients whose concerns aligned with palliative care described it as being impactful on their care (theme 3). However, most patients expressed a focus on cure from their cancer and less perceived relevance for integration of palliative care (theme 4). Integrating specialist palliative care practitioners with surgical teams made it difficult for some patients to identify how palliative care practitioners differed from other members of their care team (theme 5). While receipt of specialty palliative care in the perioperative period was generally perceived positively and patients appreciated palliative care visits, they did not describe many needs typically met by palliative care practitioners. clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03611309. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Pre-visit planning (PVP) is believed to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and experience of care, yet numerous implementation barriers exist. There are opportunities for technology-enabled and artificial intelligence (AI) support to augment existing human-driven PVP processes-from appointment reminders and pre-visit questionnaires to pre-visit order sets and care gap closures. This study aimed to explore the current state of PVP, barriers to implementation, evidence of impact, and potential use of non-AI and AI tools to support PVP.Methods: We used an environmental scan approach involving: (1) literature review; (2) key informant interviews with PVP experts in ambulatory care; and (3) a search of the public domain for technology-enabled and AI solutions that support PVP. We then synthesized the findings using a qualitative matrix analysis.Results: We found 26 unique PVP implementations in the literature and conducted 16 key informant interviews. Demonstration of impact is typically limited to process outcomes, with improved patient outcomes remaining elusive. Our key informants reported that many PVP barriers are human effort-related and see potential for non-AI and AI technologies to support certain aspects of PVP. We identified 8 examples of commercially available technology-enabled tools that support PVP, some with AI capabilities; however, few of these have been independently evaluated.Conclusions: As health systems transition toward value-based payment models in a world where the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has shifted patient care into the virtual space, PVP activities-driven by humans and supported by technology-may become more important and powerful and should be rigorously evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Like in many settings, implementation of evidence-based practices often fall short in pediatric intensive care units (PICU). Very few prior studies have applied implementation science frameworks to understand how best to improve practices in this unique environment. We used the relatively new integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) framework to assess practice improvement in the PICU and to explore the utility of the framework itself for that purpose.Methods: We used the iPARIHS framework to guide development of a semi-structured interview tool to examine barriers, facilitators, and the process of change in the PICU. A framework approach to qualitative analysis, developed around iPARIHS constructs and subconstructs, helped identify patterns and themes in provider interviews. We assessed the utility of iPARIHS to inform PICU practice change.Results: Fifty multi-professional providers working in 8 U.S. PICUs completed interviews. iPARIHS constructs shaped the development of a process model for change that consisted of phases that include planning, a decision to adopt change, implementation and facilitation, and sustainability; the PICU environment shaped each phase. Large, complex multi-professional teams, and high-stakes work at near-capacity impaired receptivity to change. While the unit leaders made decisions to pursue change, providers' willingness to accept change was based on the evidence for the change, and provider's experiences, beliefs, and capacity to integrate change into a demanding workflow. Limited analytic structures and resources frustrated attempts to monitor changes' impacts. Variable provider engagement, time allocated to work on changes, and limited collaboration impacted facilitation. iPARIHS constructs were useful in exploring implementation; however, we identified inter-relation of subconstructs, unique concepts not captured by the framework, and a need for subconstructs to further describe facilitation.Conclusions: The PICU environment significantly shaped the implementation. The described process model for implementation may be useful to guide efforts to integrate changes and select implementation strategies. iPARIHS was adequate to identify barriers and facilitators of change; however, further elaboration of subconstructs for facilitation would be helpful to operationalize the framework.Trial Registration: Not applicable, as no health care intervention was performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Innovations to improve quality and safety in healthcare are increasingly complex, targeting multiple disciplines and organizational levels, and often requiring significant behavior change by those delivering care. Learning health systems must tackle the crucial task of understanding the implementation and effectiveness of complex interventions, but may be hampered in their efforts by limitations in study design imposed by business-cycle timelines and implementation into fast-paced clinical environments. Rapid assessment procedures are a pragmatic option for producing timely, contextually rich evaluative information about complex interventions implemented into dynamic clinical settings.Methods: We describe our adaptation of rapid assessment procedures and introduce a rapid team-based analysis process using an example of an evaluation of an intensive care unit (ICU) redesign initiative aimed at improving patient safety in four academic medical centers across the USA. Steps in our approach included (1) iteratively working with stakeholders to develop evaluation questions; (2) integration of implementation science frameworks into field guides and analytic tools; (3) selecting and training a multidisciplinary site visit team; (4) preparation and trust building for 2-day site visits; (5) engaging sites in a participatory approach to data collection; (6) rapid team analysis and triangulation of data sources and methods using a priori charts derived from implementation frameworks; and (7) validation of findings with sites.Results: We used the rapid assessment approach at each of the four ICU sites to evaluate the implementation of the sites' innovations. Though the ICU projects all included three common components, they were individually developed to suit the local context and had mixed implementation outcomes. We generated in-depth case summaries describing the overall implementation process for each site; implementation barriers and facilitators for all four sites are presented. One of the site case summaries is presented as an example of findings generated using the method.Conclusions: A rapid team-based approach to qualitative analysis using charts and team discussion using validation techniques, such as member-checking, can be included as part of rapid assessment procedures. Our work demonstrates the value of including rapid assessment procedures for implementation research when time and resources are limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Understand how algorithms to identify patients eligible for palliative care have been implemented and the barriers and facilitators of their use. 2. Understand how the use of algorithms for palliative care case identification compares to usual physician-based case identification and referral process. A key challenge for palliative care services implemented in new settings is getting referrals. Technological advances in the electronic health record (EHR) and artificial intelligence have led to methods of case finding using algorithms rather than relying on physician referrals. • Describe the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes of implementing an algorithm to identify patients eligible for palliative care services. • Compare the processes and outcomes for implementing algorithms as compared to physician-based referral processes. Sixty-five longitudinal, in-depth interviews with implementers from six hospital systems implementing new palliative care programs in inpatient, outpatient, and/or community settings between June 2020 and May 2022 Three larger hospital systems with mature palliative care programs implemented locally developed algorithms. All the algorithms required a period of refinement and linking with a human-led work process to screen patients for palliative care needs and/or complete the referral process with the patient's physician. This process fostered awareness of palliative care and trust building with clinicians, thus also increasing physician-based referrals. The three smaller public/community hospitals that didn't implement algorithms relied on relationship-building activities through group educational sessions or one-to-one consultation to elicit patient referrals. This process was continuous and time consuming, and though perceived as effective over time, increased referrals to the palliative care team and subsequently diminished their ability to continue to provide outreach and education. Changing infrastructure, such as electronic health record systems, to improve the referral process is an increasingly used implementation strategy, yet algorithms are unlikely to completely replace human roles needed for education and trust building in palliative care, which was seen as essential for optimizing patient referrals. Algorithms are increasingly being used in health care for case finding, yet they cannot be implemented in isolation and require efforts to engage referring providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Label the strategies used in implementing palliative care programs and demonstrate how the various strategies impacted acceptability and adoption. 2. Connect implementation strategies with teaming concepts, both within palliative care teams and between teams (ie, palliative care with oncology, primary care, or other specialty care teams). Implementation strategies are methods or techniques used to improve the adoption of new practices. Team-based health care, or teaming—which is when at least two providers work collaboratively within and across settings to achieve high-quality coordinated patient care—is necessary for successful palliative care. Understanding which strategies are related to teaming and their importance in different settings is essential for achieving desired outcomes in palliative care. Identify and compare implementation strategies related to teaming used by six diverse health systems in expanding palliative care services Sixty-five longitudinal interviews conducted over 2 years with implementers representing academic, large nonprofit, public, and community hospitals. Content analysis using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies and strategy domains for categorizing implementation strategies. More than 35 of the 73 ERIC strategies were identified; strategies related to teaming fell primarily into three domains: 1) support clinicians, 2) train and educate stakeholders, and 3) develop stakeholder interrelationships. Creating new clinical teams (support clinicians) where there were previously none was an essential strategy; those unable to fully staff their teams experienced program establishment delays. Ongoing training, specifically in-person group trainings, and educational meetings (train and educate stakeholders) by the palliative care team to promote awareness and competencies within and across teams, were hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting initial adoption. Developing stakeholder interrelationships, particularly involving executive boards/leadership, was perceived as a necessary ongoing strategy for program establishment, adoption, and sustainability. Strategies related to teaming include creating palliative care teams, training and educating the interdisciplinary team and referring providers, and establishing relationships with providers and leadership, which impact the acceptability and adoption of palliative care services. Strategies promoting within and cross team relationships, education, and clinician support are necessary when expanding palliative care services and should be continuous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many people with a terminal illness would prefer to die at home. A new palliative rapid response service (RRS) provided by a large hospice provider in South East England was evaluated (2010) to provide evidence of impact on achieving preferred place of death and costs. The RRS was delivered by a team of trained health care assistants and available 24/7. The purpose of this study was to (i) compare the characteristics of RRS users and non-users, (ii) explore differences in the proportions of users and non-users dying in the place of their choice, (iii) monitor the whole system service utilisation of users and non-users, and compare costs. Methods: All hospice patients who died with a preferred place of death recorded during an 18 month period were included. Data (demographic, preferences for place of death) were obtained from hospice records. Dying in preferred place was modelled using stepwise logistic regression analysis. Service use data (period between referral to hospice and death) were obtained from general practitioners, community providers, hospitals, social services, hospice, and costs calculated using validated national tariffs. Results: Of 688 patients referred to the hospice when the RRS was operational, 247 (35.9 %) used it. Higher proportions of RRS users than non-users lived in their own homes with a co-resident carer (40.3 % vs. 23.7 %); more non-users lived alone or in residential care (58.8 % vs. 76.3 %). Chances of dying in the preferred place were enhanced 2.1 times by being a RRS user, compared to a non-user, and 1.5 times by having a co-resident carer, compared to living at home alone or in a care home. Total service costs did not differ between users and non-users, except when referred to hospice very close to death (users had higher costs). Conclusions: Use of the RRS was associated with increased likelihood of dying in the preferred place. The RRS is cost neutral. Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN32119670, 22 June 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid response services operating 24 h a day have been advocated in UK health policy to support dying patients at home, though there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. Aim: To assess the impact of a rapid response hospice at home service (intervention) on people dying in their preferred place, and carer quality of life, compared to usual care (control). Design: Quasi-experimental multi-centred controlled evaluation. Patient data were collected from hospice records; carers completed postal questionnaires to report quality of life, anxiety and depression. Setting and participants: Community served by one hospice (three contiguous sites) in South East England; 953 patients who died with a preferred place of death recorded and 64 carers who completed questionnaires. Results: There was no significant difference between control and intervention groups in proportions achieving preferred place of death (61.9% vs 63.0% (odds ratio: 0.949; 95% confidence interval: 0.788–1.142)). People living at home alone were less likely to die where they wanted (0.541; 95% confidence interval: 0.438–0.667). Carers in the intervention group reported worse mental health component summary scores (short form-12, p = 0.03) than those in the control group; there were no differences in other carer outcomes. Conclusion: The addition of a rapid response hospice at home service did not have a significant impact on helping patients to die where they wanted in an area already well served by community palliative care. Recording preferences, and changes over time, is difficult and presented challenges for this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The way that people die is particularly important to those who are left behind and this memory is not limited to the moment of death, but encompasses the entire end-of-life phase. While a number of attributes for a ‘good death’ have been identified, less is known about how care providers feature within these conceptualisations. Aim: The aim of this article is to describe the end-of-life experience from the point of view of bereaved family carers with particular reference to the role that care providers play in shaping this experience. Design: Qualitative interviews carried out as part of a study to evaluate a new rapid response hospice at home service. An interpretive thematic analysis using the Framework approach was used to examine how family carers judge a ‘good death’ and how care providers feature in the attributes of a ‘good death’. Participants and setting: A total of 44 interviews with bereaved family carers from a hospice population in the South East of England. Results: Six themes were identified as attributes of a good death in which care providers had a key role: social engagement and connection to identity, care provider characteristics and actions, carer’s confidence and ability to care, preparation and awareness of death, presentation of the patient at death and support after death for protected grieving. Conclusion: Care providers played a much wider role in social aspects of care at the end of life than previously considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The risks of red blood cell transfusion may outweigh the benefits for many patients in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), but guidelines from the Transfusion and Anemia eXpertise Initiative (TAXI) have not been consistently adopted. We sought to identify factors that influenced transfusion decision‐making in PICUs to explore potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the guidelines. Study Design and Methods: A total of 50 ICU providers working in eight US ICUs of different types (non‐cardiac PICUs, cardiovascular ICUs, combined units) and variable sizes (11–32 beds) completed semi‐structured interviews. Providers included ICU attendings and trainees, nurse practitioners, nurses, and subspecialty physicians. Interviews examined factors that influenced transfusion decisions, transfusion practices, and provider beliefs. Qualitative analysis utilized a Framework Approach. Summarized data was compared between provider roles and units with consideration to identify patterns and unique informative statements. Results: Providers cited clinical, physiologic, anatomic, and logistic factors they considered in making transfusion decisions. Improving oxygen carrying capacity, hemodynamics and perfusion, respiratory function, volume deficits, and correcting laboratory values were among the reasons given for transfusion. Other sought‐after benefits included alleviating symptoms of anemia, improving ICU throughput, and decreasing blood waste. Providers in different roles approached transfusion decisions differently, with the largest differences noted between nurses and subspecialists as compared with other ICU providers. While ICU attendings most often made the decision to transfuse, all providers influenced the decision‐making. Discussion: Implementation of transfusion guidelines requires multi‐professional approaches that emphasize the known risks of transfusion, its limited benefits, and highlight evidence around the safety and benefit of restrictive approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While most people faced with a terminal illness would prefer to die at home, less than a third in England are enabled to do so with many dying in National Health Service hospitals. Patients are more likely to die at home if their carers receive professional support. Hospice rapid response teams, which provide specialist palliative care at home on a 24/7 on-call basis, are proposed as an effective way to help terminally ill patients die in their preferred place, usually at home. However, the effectiveness of rapid response teams has not been rigorously evaluated in terms of patient, carer and cost outcomes. Methods/Design: The study is a pragmatic quasi-experimental controlled trial. The primary outcome for the quantitative evaluation for patients is dying in their preferred place of death. Carers' quality of life will be evaluated using postal questionnaires sent at patient intake to the hospice service and eight months later. Carers' perceptions of care received and the patient's death will be assessed in one to one interviews at 6 to 8 months post bereavement. Service utilisation costs including the rapid response intervention will be compared to those of usual care. Discussion: The study will contribute to the development of the evidence base on outcomes for patients and carers and costs of hospice rapid response teams operating in the community. Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN32119670. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Measuring service use and costs is an important aspect of service delivery evaluation. In end-of-life care, there is heavy reliance on care by family/friends (informal carers) and this should be reflected in the total cost of care alongside formal services. The Ambulatory and Home Care Record, developed in Canada, is both comprehensive in coverage and validated for collecting data on formal and informal caring. This study aimed to adapt and pilot the Ambulatory and Home Care Record questionnaire for use in the UK within a study evaluating a new palliative care service. The objectives were to test if family carers could be recruited and assess acceptability and usability of data gathered. Methods: Single cohort pilot study using a structured telephone questionnaire carried out every other week. Family carers of patients newly added to the palliative care register or referred to hospice services in the South East of England were invited to participate by mail. Volunteers remained in the study for a maximum of six interviews or until the patient died. Results: In total, 194 carers were invited by mail to participate in the study, of which 23 (11.8%) completed at least one interview and 16 (8.2%) completed all possible interviews. Recruitment to the study was lower than anticipated, but most participants seemed to find the interviews acceptable. The modified questionnaire produced usable and relevant data for an economic evaluation of formal and informal caring costs. Conclusions: Modifications are needed to the process of recruitment as a postal recruitment strategy did not have a high response rate. The Ambulatory and Home Care Record has proved a viable tool for use in the UK setting, with a few minor modifications, and will be used in a larger study comparing hospice models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Tracking adaptations during implementation can help assess and interpret outcomes. The framework for reporting adaptations and modifications‐expanded (FRAME) provides a structured approach to characterize adaptations. We applied the FRAME across multiple health services projects, and developed an analytic approach to assess the impact of adaptations. Methods: Mixed methods analysis of research diaries from seven quality improvement (QI) and research projects during the early stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Using the FRAME as a codebook, discrete adaptations were described and categorized. We then conducted a three‐step analysis plan: (1) calculated the frequency of adaptations by FRAME categories across projects; (2) qualitatively assessed the impact of adaptations on project goals; and (3) qualitatively assessed relationships between adaptations within projects to thematically consolidate adaptations to generate more explanatory value on how adaptations influenced intervention progress and outcomes. Results: Between March and July 2020, 42 adaptations were identified across seven health services projects. The majority of adaptations related to training or evaluation (52.4%) with the goal of maintaining the feasibility (66.7%) of executing projects during the pandemic. Five FRAME constructs offered the most explanatory benefit to assess the impact of adaptations on program and evaluation goals, providing the basis for creating an analytic approach dubbed the "A‐FRAME," analysis of FRAME data. Using the A‐FRAME, the 42 adaptations were consolidated into 17 succinct adaptations. Two QI projects discontinued altogether. Intervention adaptations related to staffing, training, or delivery, while evaluation adaptations included design, recruitment, and data collection adjustments. Conclusions: By sifting qualitative data about adaptations into the A‐FRAME, implementers and researchers can succinctly describe how adaptations affect interventions and their evaluations. The simple and concise presentation of information using the A‐FRAME matrix can help implementers and evaluators account for the influence of adaptations on program outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our goals are to quantify the impact on acute care utilization of a specialized COVID-19 clinic with an integrated remote patient monitoring program in an academic medical center and further examine these data with stakeholder perceptions of clinic effectiveness and acceptability. Methods: A retrospective cohort was drawn from enrolled and unenrolled ambulatory patients who tested positive in May through September 2020 matched on age, presence of comorbidities and other factors. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients, frontline clinician, and administrators were analyzed in an inductive-deductive approach to identify key themes. Results: Enrolled patients were more likely to be hospitalized than unenrolled patients (N = 11/137 in enrolled vs 2/126 unenrolled, p =.02), reflecting a higher admittance rate following emergency department (ED) events among the enrolled vs unenrolled, though this was not a significant difference (46% vs 25%, respectively, p =.32). Thirty-eight qualitative interviews conducted June to October 2020 revealed broad stakeholder belief in the clinic's support of appropriate care escalation. Contrary to beliefs the clinic reduced inappropriate care utilization, no difference was seen between enrolled and unenrolled patients who presented to the ED and were not admitted (N = 10/137 in enrolled vs 8/126 unenrolled, p =.76). Administrators and providers described the clinic's integral role in allowing health services to resume in other areas of the health system following an initial lockdown. Conclusions: Acute care utilization and multi-stakeholder interviews suggest heightened outpatient observation through a specialized COVID-19 clinic and remote patient monitoring program may have contributed to an increase in appropriate acute care utilization. The clinic's role securing safe reopening of health services systemwide was endorsed as a primary, if unmeasured, benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current evaluation methods are mismatched with the speed of health care innovation and needs of health care delivery partners. We introduce a qualitative approach called the lightning report method and its specific product—the "Lightning Report." We compare implementation evaluation results across four projects to explore report sensitivity and the potential depth and breadth of lightning report method findings. Methods: The lightning report method was refined over 2.5 years across four projects: team‐based primary care, cancer center transformation, precision health in primary care, and a national life‐sustaining decisions initiative. The novelty of the lightning report method is the application of Plus/Delta/Insight debriefing to dynamic implementation evaluation. This analytic structure captures Plus ("what works"), Delta ("what needs to be changed"), and Insights (participant or evaluator insights, ideas, and recommendations). We used structured coding based on implementation science barriers and facilitators outlined in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied to 17 Lightning Reports from four projects. Results: Health care partners reported that Lighting Reports were valuable, easy to understand, and they implied reports supported "corrective action" for implementations. Comparative analysis revealed cross‐project emphasis on the domains of Inner Setting and Intervention Characteristics, with themes of communication, resources/staffing, feedback/reflection, alignment with simultaneous interventions and traditional care, and team cohesion. In three of the four assessed projects, the largest proportion of coding was to the clinic‐level domain of Inner Setting—ranging from 39% for the cancer center project to a high of 56% for the life‐sustaining decisions project. Conclusions: The lightning report method can fill a gap in rapid qualitative approaches and is generalizable with consistent but flexible core methods. Comparative analysis suggests it is a sensitive tool, capable of uncovering differences and insights in implementation across projects. The Lightning Report facilitates partnered evaluation and communication with stakeholders by providing real‐time, actionable insights in dynamic health care implementations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]