Search

Background: Since the early 90s, patient navigation programs were introduced in the United States to address inequitable access to cancer care. Programs have since expanded internationally and in scope. The goals of patient navigation programs are to: a) link patients and families to primary care services, specialist care, and community-based health and social services (CBHSS); b) provide more holistic patient-centred care; and, c) identify and resolve patient barriers to care. This paper fills a gap in knowledge to reveal what is known about motivators and factors influencing implementation and maintenance of patient navigation programs in primary care that link patients to CBHSS. It also reports on outcomes from these studies to help identify gaps in research that can inform future studies.Methods: This scoping literature review involved: i) electronic database searches; ii) a web site search; iii) a search of reference lists from literature reviews; and, iv) author follow up. It included papers from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and/or Western Europe published between January 1990 and June 2013 if they discussed navigators or navigation programs in primary care settings that linked patients to CBHSS.Results: Of 34 papers, most originated in the United States (n = 29) while the remainder were from the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Motivators for initiating navigation programs were to: a) improve delivery of health and social care services; b) support and manage specific health needs or specific population needs, and; c) improve quality of life and wellbeing of patients. Eleven factors were found to influence implementation and maintenance of these patient navigation programs. These factors closely aligned with the Diffusion of Innovation in Service Organizations model, thus providing a theoretical foundation to support them. Various positive outcomes were reported for patients, providers and navigators, as well as the health and social care system, although they need to be considered with caution since the majority of studies were descriptive.Conclusions: This study contributes new knowledge that can inform the initiation and maintenance of primary care patient navigation programs that link patients with CBHSS. It also provides directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online knowledge translation (KT) approaches are becoming increasingly prevalent within healthcare due to their accessibility and facilitation of international support networks. Online platforms enable timely and far‐reaching dissemination of current evidence and best‐practice recommendations. Although there is potential to improve the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines, it is essential to consider the acceptability of online approaches to healthcare professionals to ensure their successful integration within everyday clinical settings. Aims: To establish the prospective acceptability of a theoretically informed online intervention for speech pathologists, Aphasia Nexus: Connecting Evidence to Practice, that aims to facilitate the implementation of aphasia best practice. Methods & Procedures: A mixed‐methods multinational electronic survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) completed by aphasia researchers and clinicians. Outcomes & Results: A total of 43 participants completed the survey with 91% (n = 39) indicating that they would use Aphasia Nexus. Understanding the intervention and how it works (intervention coherence as per the TFA) was the key factor influencing the likelihood of integration within everyday clinical practice. Participants identified potential areas where the intervention could influence service change and also recommended further design and content changes to improve the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable platform for further feasibility testing in the form of a pilot trial within an Australian‐based health service. The study progresses the theory of TFA as it was a valuable framework facilitating the identification of prominent factors influencing acceptability. The study also informs further intervention refinements in preparation for the next stage of research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Online strategies have the potential to enhance KT and promote the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines. An online intervention, however, can only be effective if implemented well. For this reason, it is essential to establish the acceptability of online interventions to the intended recipients and therefore increase the likelihood of successful implementation. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study used a theoretically based framework to establish the acceptability of an online implementation intervention, Aphasia Nexus, to multinational aphasia clinicians and researchers. It demonstrated the value in identifying the prominent factors influencing acceptability to inform further intervention refinements and warrant continuing research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Speech pathologists should use online platforms to drive the implementation of best practice on an international scale. It is important for clinicians to have an in‐depth understanding of online interventions and how they work to enhance their successful uptake into routine clinical practice. Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable online platform for implementing best practice in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The goal of Lean Enterprise Transformation (LET) is to go beyond simply using Lean tools and instead embed Lean principles and practices in the system so that it becomes a fundamental, collective mindset of the entire enterprise. The Veterans Engineering Resource Center (VERC) launched the Veterans Affairs (VA) LET pilot program to improve quality, safety, and the Veteran's experience. A national evaluation will examine the pilot program sites' implementation processes, outcomes and impacts, and abilities to improve LET adoption and sustainment. This paper describes the evaluation design for the VA LET national evaluation and describes development of a conceptual framework to evaluate LET specifically in healthcare settings.Methods: A targeted literature review of Lean evaluation frameworks was performed to inform the development of the conceptual framework. Key domains were identified by a multidisciplinary expert group and then validated with key stakeholders. The national evaluation design will examine LET implementation using qualitative, survey, and quantitative methods at ten VA facilities. Qualitative data include site visits, interviews, and field observation notes. Survey data include an employee engagement survey to be administered to front-line staff at all pilot sites. Quantitative data include site-level quality improvement metrics collected by the Veterans Services Support Center. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods analyses will be conducted to examine implementation of LET strategic initiatives and variations in implementation success across sites.Discussion: This national evaluation of a large-scale LET implementation effort will provide insights helpful to other systems interested in embarking on a Lean journey. Additionally, we created a multi-faceted conceptual framework to capture the specific features of a Lean healthcare organization. This framework will guide this evaluation and may be useful as an assessment tool for other organizations interested in implementing Lean principles at an enterprise level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine: (1) what elements of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are typically provided to low-income populations, (2) whether PCMHs improve health behaviors, experiences, and outcomes for low-income groups.Data Sources/study Setting: Existing literature on PCMH utilization among health care organizations serving low-income populations.Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data Collection/extraction Methods: We obtained papers through existing systematic and literature reviews and via PubMed, Web of Science, and the TRIP databases, which examined PCMHs serving low-income populations. A total of 434 studies were reviewed. Thirty-three articles met eligibility criteria.Principal Findings: Patient-centered medical home interventions usually were composed of five of the six recommended components. Overall positive effect of PCMH interventions was d = 0.247 (range -0.965 to 1.42). PCMH patients had better clinical outcomes (d = 0.395), higher adherence (0.392), and lower utilization of emergency rooms (d = -0.248), but there were apparent limitations in study quality.Conclusions: Evidence shows that the PCMH model can increase health outcomes among low-income populations. However, limitations to quality include no assessment for confounding variables. Implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S. Methods: We wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template. Results: We found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing. Conclusion: We clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. health care system is one of the world's most advanced systems. Yet, the health care system suffers from unexplained practice variations, major gaps between evidence and practice, and suboptimal quality. Although information processing, communication, and management are key to health care delivery and considerable evidence links information/communication technology (IT) to improvements in patient safety and quality of care, the health care system has a longstanding gap in its investment. In the Crossing the Quality Chasm and Building a Better Delivery System reports, The Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Engineering identified IT integration as critical to improving health care delivery systems. This paper reviews the state of IT use in the U.S. health care system, its role in facilitating evidence-based practices, and identifies key attributes of an ideal IT infrastructure and issues surrounding IT implementation. We also examine structural, financial, policy-related, cultural, and organizational barriers to IT implementation for evidence-based practice and strategies to overcome them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly in routine clinical care and inform policies, reimbursements, and quality improvement. Less is known regarding PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations. Objective: This review aims to identify studies of PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations, elucidate representation of clinical specialties, assess implementation outcomes, and synthesize patient needs, concerns, and preferences. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched September 2021 for studies aiming to study PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations within the United States. Studies were screened and data extracted by three independent reviewers. Implementation outcomes were assessed according to Proctor et al. taxonomy. A descriptive analysis of data was conducted. Results: The search yielded 8,687 records, and 28 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority were observational cohort studies (n = 21, 75%) and conducted in primary care (n = 10, 36%). Most studies included majority female (n = 19, 68%) and non-White populations (n = 15, 54%), while fewer reported socioeconomic (n = 11, 39%) or insurance status (n = 9, 32.1%). Most studies assessed implementation outcomes of feasibility (n = 27, 96%) and acceptability (n = 19, 68%); costs (n = 3, 11%), penetration (n = 1, 4%), and sustainability (n = 1, 4%) were infrequently assessed. Conclusion: PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations is generally feasible and acceptable. Research is lacking in key clinical specialties. Further work is needed to understand how health disparities drive PRO implementation outcomes. Plain English summary: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow doctors and researchers to understand the patient perspective, such as how they are doing physically, mentally, or socially. When used, PROs can improve health and increase satisfaction of patients. Many clinics and hospitals are interested in using PROs in everyday care. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are also using information from PROs to decide if the care they give is good quality. Unfortunately, certain groups of patients, such as racial and ethnic minorities and patients with low income, report worse PROs. Because of these differences, it will be important to make sure that PROs are being collected from all people, but not much is known regarding how this has been done. This study demonstrates what is known so far with regard to using PROs in everyday clinical care for these diverse patient groups. Findings from this study show that PROs can be successfully collected, but more work is needed in certain medical fields, and some types of patients have specific needs, concerns, or preferences with regard to PRO collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to reform primary care increasingly focus on redesigning care in ways that utilize nonprovider staff such as medical assistants (MAs), but the implementation of MA role redesign efforts remains understudied in the U.S. health care literature. This article draws on rich, longitudinal case study data collected from four health care systems across the United States to examine critical challenges in the planning, implementation, and early sustainment of MA role redesign efforts in primary care. During the planning period, challenges included recruitment of highly trained MAs, compliance with organizational and state regulations regarding MA scope of practice, provision of consistent training across primary care clinics, and creation of career ladders that provided tiered compensation for MAs. During active implementation, challenges included provider training and preventing MA burnout. Strategies for addressing challenges in MA role redesign efforts are discussed, as well as early sustainment of program practices and organizational policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In primary care practices, sustainability of performance improvements and ability to deliver continuity of care to patients can be adversely affected by major disruptive events, such as relocations and changes in ownership, clinicians, and key staff. This study documented the rates of major disruptive events in a cohort of primary care practices in Oklahoma.Methods: Practices were included if they had existed for 1 year before enrollment and remained in the project for at least 1 year after enrollment. Practice characteristics for 208 practices and major disruptive events during the preenrollment year were collected by survey. Postenrollment major disruptive events were prospectively collected by practice facilitators. We compiled frequency statistics and conducted bivariate analyses for each data set.Results: Of 208 eligible practices, 81 (39%) were clinician owned, and 51 (25%) were health system owned. One hundred nine practices (52%) were in nonmetropolitan counties. One hundred seventy-five major disruptive events occurred in 120 (58%) practices during the preenrollment year, with 42 practices having experienced multiple events. During the first year of the project, 89 major disruptive events occurred in 67 (32%) practices, with 20 practices experiencing multiple events. The major disruptive events reported most often during both periods were loss of personnel and implementation of electronic health records and billing systems. Practice size was associated with occurrence of these events.Conclusions: During a 2-year period, major disruptive events occurred at an alarming rate, adversely affecting quality improvement efforts. Most reported events involved losses of clinicians and staff. More research is needed to identify and address the root causes of these events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over 1100 Veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs). PSs are Veterans with formal training who provide support to other Veterans with similar diagnoses, primarily in mental health settings. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PS in PACT, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in VHA settings. We present the protocol for this cluster-randomized hybrid type II trial to test the impact of standard implementation (receive minimal assistance) vs. facilitated implementation (receive outside assistance) on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT.Methods: A VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group is recruiting 25 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers to reassign a mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 8, 8, 9) beginning over 6-month blocks will be matched and randomized to either standard or facilitated implementation. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert works with site stakeholders through a site visit, regular calls, and performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Standard implementation sites will receive a webinar and access the Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions will be compared on PS workload data, fidelity to the PS model of service delivery, team functioning, and Veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews will collect information on implementation barriers and facilitators.Discussion: This evaluation will provide critical data to guide administrators and VHA policy makers on future deployment of PSs, as their role has been expanding beyond mental health. In addition, development of novel implementation strategies (facilitation tailored to PSs) and the use of new tools (peer fidelity) can be models for monitoring and supporting deployment of PSs throughout VHA.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In most countries, genetic carrier screening is neither offered, nor embedded in mainstream healthcare. Technological developments have triggered a two-fold transition in carrier screening: the expansion from screening one single disorder to many disorders simultaneously, and offering screening universally, regardless of ancestry. This study aims to identify general and population-specific barriers and needs reflected by stakeholders regarding the implementation of carrier screening in a changing landscape.Methods: Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch key stakeholders working in the practical and scientific field of carrier screening. The constellation approach was used to categorise barriers and needs into three levels: culture, structure and practice.Results: Barriers on a cultural level include: undecidedness about the desirability of carrier screening, and a lack of priority of screening in mainstream healthcare. On a structural level barriers included: need for organisational structures in healthcare for embedding carrier screening, need for guidelines, financial structures, practical tools for overcoming challenges during counselling, and a need for training and education of both professionals and the public. A lack of demand for screening by the public, and a need for a division of responsibilities were barriers on a practical level.Conclusion: The absence of a collective sense of urgency for genetic carrier screening, a lack of organisational structures, and uncertainty or even disagreement about the responsibilities seem to be important barriers in the implementation of carrier screening. Stakeholders therefore suggest that change agents should be formally acknowledged to strategically plan broadening of current initiatives and attune different stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing the use of routine preventive care such as HIV testing is important, yet implementation of such evidence-based clinical care is complex. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) model for implementation posits that implementation will be most successful when the evidence, context, and facilitation strategies are strong for the clinical practice. We evaluated the relative importance of perceived evidence, context, and facilitation of HIV testing during the implementation of a multimodal intervention in US Department of Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. Methods: A multimodal intervention including clinical reminders (CRs), academic detailing--providing education sessions for providers--and social marketing to improve HIV testing was implemented in 15 VA primary care clinics in three regions. We conducted qualitative formative and process evaluations using semi-structured interviews with HIV lead clinicians, primary care lead clinicians, nurse managers, and social workers. Interviews were analyzed thematically to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of HIV testing and how these were addressed by the intervention. Sites were then rated high, medium, or low on the dimensions of perceived evidence and the context for testing. We then assessed the relationship of these ratings to improvements in HIV testing rates found in earlier quantitative analyses. Results: Sites that showed greatest improvements in HIV testing rates also rated high on evidence and context. Conversely, sites that demonstrated the poorest improvements in testing rates rated low on both dimensions. Perceptions of evidence and several contextual aspects resulted in both barriers and facilitators to implementing testing. Evidence barriers included provider perceptions of evidence for routine testing as irrelevant to their population. Contextual barriers included clinical reminder overload, insufficient resources, onerous consent processes, stigma, provider discomfort, and concerns about linking individuals who test positive to HIV treatment. While most barriers were ameliorated by the intervention, HIV stigma in particular regions and concerns about linkage to care persisted. Conclusions: Interventions to implement evidence-based practices such as HIV testing can be successful when utilizing proven quality improvement techniques. However, it is critical to address providers' perceptions of evidence and consider aspects of the local context in order to fully implement new routine clinical practices such as HIV testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The home care industry has been wrapped up in OASIS-C for many months now. The "what if" questions are over, and the concrete user-generated questions are rolling to the surface. With the January release of the CMS OCCB Q&As, a number of these user-generated questions posed to CMS were clarified. This article, with the January Q&As attached, reviews some modifications in the old OASIS "rules" causing clinicians and agencies to reprogram some of their strategies and procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To synthesize lessons learned from the experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded patient safety projects in implementing safe practices. Data Sources. Self-reported data from individual and group interviews with Original, Challenge, and Partnerships in Implementing Patient Safety (PIPS) grantees, from 2003 to 2006. Study Design. Interviews with three grantee groups ( n=60 total) implementing safe practice projects, with comparisons on factors influencing project implementation and sustainability. Data Collection. Semi-structured protocols contained open-ended questions on lessons learned and more structured questions on factors associated with project implementation and sustainability. Principal Findings. The grantees shared common experiences, frequently identifying lessons learned regarding structural components needing to be in place before implementation, components of the implementation process, components of interventions' results needed for sustainability, changes in timelines or activities, unanticipated issues, and staff acceptance/adoption. Also, fewer Original grants had many of the factors related project to implementation/sustainability than the PIPS or Challenge grantees had. Conclusions. Although much of what was reported seemed like common sense, surprisingly few projects actually planned for or expected many of the barriers or facilitators they experienced during their project implementation. Others implementing practice improvements likely will share the experiences and issues identified by these implementation projects and can learn from their lessons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology has recently begun to receive increased interest from practitioners and academicians. This interest is driven by mandates from major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target and Metro Group, and the United States Department of Defense, in order to increase the efficiency and visibility of material and information flows in the supply chain. However, supply chain managers do not have a monopoly on the deployment of RFID. In this article, the authors discuss the potential benefits, the areas of applications, the implementation challenges, and the corresponding strategies of RFID in hospital environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The persistence of a large quality gap between what we know about how to produce high quality clinical care and what the public receives has prompted interest in developing more effective methods to get evidence into practice. Implementation research aims to supply such methods.Purpose: This article proposes a set of recommendations aimed at establishing a common understanding of what implementation research is, and how to foster its development.Methods: We developed the recommendations in the context of a translation research conference hosted by the VA for VA and non-VA health services researchers.Impacts: Health care organizations, journals, researchers and academic institutions can use these recommendations to advance the field of implementation science and thus increase the impact of clinical and health services research on the health and health care of the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]