Search

Background: Increasing access to healthy foods and beverages in disadvantaged communities is a public health priority due to alarmingly high rates of obesity. The Virtual Supermarket Program (VSP) is a Baltimore City Health Department program that uses online grocery ordering to deliver food to low-income neighborhoods. This study evaluates stakeholder preferences and barriers of program implementation.Methods: This study assessed the feasibility, sustainability and efficacy of the VSP by surveying 93 customers and interviewing 14 programmatic stakeholders who had recently used the VSP or been involved with program design and implementation.Results: We identified the following themes: The VSP addressed transportation barriers and food availability. The VSP impacted customers and the city by including improving food purchasing behavior, creating a food justice "brand for the city", and fostering a sense of community. Customers appreciated using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to pay for groceries, but policy changes are needed allow online processing of SNAP benefits.Conclusions: This evaluation summarizes lessons learned and serves as a guide to other public health leaders interested in developing similar programs. Provisions in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Bill 2014 allow for select grocers to pilot online transactions with SNAP benefits. If these pilots are efficacious, the VSP model could be easily disseminated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Catheter associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most commonly acquired health care associated infections within the United States. We examined the implementation of an initiative to prevent CAUTI, to better understand how health care providers' perceptions of risk influenced their use of prevention practices and the potential impact these risk perceptions have on patient care decisions. Understanding such perceptions are critical for developing more effective approaches to ensure the successful uptake of key patient safety practices and thus safer care for hospitalized patients. Methods: We conducted semi-structured phone and in-person interviews with staff from 12 hospitals. A total of 42 interviews were analyzed using open coding and a constant comparative approach. This analysis identified "risk" as a central theme and a "risk explanatory framework" was identified for its sensitizing constructs to organize and explain our findings. Results: We found that multiple perceptions of risk, some non-evidence based, were used by healthcare providers to determine if use of the indwelling urethral catheter was necessary. These risks included normative work where staff deal with competing priorities and must decide which ones to attend too; loosely coupled errors where negative outcomes and the use of urinary catheters were not clearly linked; process weaknesses where risk seemed to be related to both the existing organizational processes and the new initiative being implemented and; workarounds that consisted of health care workers developing workarounds in order to bypass some of the organizational processes created to dissuade catheter use. Conclusions: Hospitals that are implementing patient safety initiatives aimed at reducing indwelling urethral catheters should be aware that the risk to the patient is not the only risk of perceived importance; implementation plans should be formulated accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial.Methods/design: This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies.Discussion: Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680 , First Posted July 6, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The study was done to evaluate levels of missing and invalid values in the Michigan (MI) National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) (MI-EMSIS) and explore possible causes to inform improvement in data reporting and prehospital care quality., Methods: We used a mixed-methods approach to study trends in data reporting. The proportion of missing or invalid values for 18 key reported variables in the MI-EMSIS (2010-2015) dataset was assessed overall, then stratified by EMS agency, software platform, and Medical Control Authorities (MCA)-regional EMS oversight entities in MI. We also conducted 4 focus groups and 10 key-informant interviews with EMS participants to understand the root causes of data missingness in MI-EMSIS., Results: Only five variables of the 18 studied exhibited less than 10% missingness, and there was apparent variation in the rate of missingness across all stratifying variables under study. No consistent trends over time regarding the levels of missing or invalid values from 2010 to 2015 were identified. Qualitative findings indicated possible causes for this missingness including data-mapping issues, unclear variable definitions, and lack of infrastructure or training for data collection., Conclusions: The adoption of electronic data collection in the prehospital setting can only support quality improvement if its entry is complete. The data suggest that there are many EMS agencies and MCAs with very high levels of missingness, and they do not appear to be improving over time, demonstrating a need for investment in efforts in improving data collection and reporting.