Search

Background: This study examined fidelity of implementation strategies used in an organizational process improvement intervention (OPII) designed to improve evidence-based practices related to assessments for drug-involved clients exiting incarceration. Leadership was studied as a moderating factor between fidelity and outcomes. Methods: A mixed-method cluster randomized design was used to randomize 21 sites to early- or delayed-start within 9 research centers. Parent study protocol was reviewed to develop fidelity constructs (i.e., responsiveness, dose, quality, adherence). Outcomes were site-level success in achieving goals and objectives completed during the OPII (e.g., percent goals achieved). Correlations, analyses of covariance, regressions and moderation analyses were performed. Qualitative interviews assessed facilitators/barriers to implementation. Results: Fidelity constructs related to outcomes. No differences were found in fidelity by early or delayed condition. At low levels of leadership, high staff responsiveness (i.e., engagement in the OPII) related to poorer outcome. Conclusions: It is important to consider contextual factors (e.g., leadership) that may influence implementation strategy fidelity when deploying evidence-based practices. Findings are relevant to researchers, clinicians, administrators and policy makers, and suggest that goal completion during implementation of evidence-based practices requires monitoring of leadership competence, fidelity to implementation strategies (i.e., staff responsiveness to strategies) and attendance to goal importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain. Method: Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed). Results: Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites. Conclusions: Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adolescent illicit drug, tobacco, and alcohol use can result in sudden and long-term negative health consequences. Primary care environments present the optimal opportunity for screening and brief interventions that target prevention and curtailing use. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a service delivery method that could potentially be well-integrated into primary care settings and used to serve a high volume of adolescents. Methods: This qualitative analysis of clinic staff interviews (N = 20), collected during a large cluster-randomized trial to implement two models of adolescent SBIRT, examined barriers and facilitating factors to overall acceptability of SBIRT. This study was conducted in a large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) at 7 sites throughout Baltimore City, Maryland, USA. Participants from each clinic included a range of various roles and responsibilities including: medical assistants (n = 3), nurses (n = 3), primary care providers (n = 4), behavioral health counselors (n = 4), and administrators (n = 6). Results: Results indicate both barriers and facilitating factors for acceptability of SBIRT in terms of (1) universal screening, (2) provider time demands, (3) behavioral health collaboration, and (4) behavioral health caseloads. Discussion: Universal screening was acceptable to participants across organizational roles, but brief interventions and referrals to treatment were found substantially less acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]