Search

Purpose: Multisector health care alliances (alliances) are increasingly viewed as playing an important role in improving the health and health care of local populations, in part by disseminating innovative practices, yet alliances face a number of challenges to disseminating these practices beyond a limited set of initial participants. The purpose of this paper is to examine how alliances attempt to disseminate innovative practices and the facilitating and inhibiting factors that alliances confront when trying to do so., Design/methodology/approach: The authors adopted multiple holistic case study design of eight alliances with a maximum variation case selection strategy to reflect a range of structural and geographic characteristics. Semi-structured interviews with staff, leaders and board members were used., Findings: The findings show that dissemination is a multidirectional process that is closely if not inextricably intertwined with capacity- and context-related factors (of the alliance, partnering organizations and target organizations). Thus, standardized approaches to dissemination are likely the exception and not the rule, and highlight the value of existing frameworks as a starting point for conceptualizing the important aspects of dissemination, but they are incomplete in their description of the "on-the-ground" dissemination processes that occur in the context of collaborative organizational forms such as alliances., Originality/value: Despite a rapidly expanding evidence base to guide clinical and managerial decision making, this knowledge often fails to make its way into routine practice. Consequently, the search for effective strategies to reduce this gap has accelerated in the past decade. This study sheds light on those strategies and the challenges to implementing them.

Objective: To report summative evaluation results from the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) signature effort to improve quality of care from 2005 to 2015., Methods: This was a longitudinal mixed methods program evaluation (ie, multiphase triangulated evaluation) of 16 grantee "alliances" from across the country, funded by RWJF as part of the AF4Q initiative. Grantees were selected in a nonexperimental manner and were charged with deploying interventions in 5 main programmatic areas to improve health and healthcare in their communities., Results: Except for a small proportion of outcomes, there were no major differences in the rate of longitudinal improvement in AF4Q communities, compared with control communities, on quantitative outcomes related to the Triple Aim. Although the majority of the measures improved in both AF4Q and non-AF4Q communities, there were some exceptions to this improving trend, most noticeably in the cost of care and population health. There was also considerable heterogeneity across communities in terms of programmatic areas and the scale and scope of interventions in these areas. Although a number of AF4Q alliances implemented robust interventions in specific areas, often advancing strategies useful for others in the field, no AF4Q alliance pursued and aligned all 5 AF4Q programmatic areas in a robust way. In addition, whereas all alliances were able to garner the participation of multiple stakeholders initially, sustaining this participation and securing new sources of funding after RWJF support ended proved challenging for many alliances. Conclusion and Policy and Practice Implications: While the AF4Q program did not attain the ambitious community-level changes predicted by its sponsor at the program's outset, it did produce pockets of success on some dimensions for particular alliances. A number of factors explain the less-than-expected impact of the AF4Q initiative on community health and the observed variation in alliance sustainability and intervention strength. These include differing acceptance of the AF4Q initiative's theory of change, variation in the experience and capacity of the alliance communities selected for the program, differences in alliances' local healthcare market context, and the changing programmatic requirements for alliances participating in the AF4Q initiative. The variation in AF4Q program outcomes offers important lessons for those engaged in regional health improvement work.

Objective: The Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative was the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) signature effort to increase the overall quality of healthcare in targeted communities throughout the country. In addition to sponsoring this 16-site complex program, RWJF funded an independent scientific evaluation to support objective research on the initiative's effectiveness and contributions to basic knowledge in 5 core programmatic areas. The research design, data, and challenges faced during the summative evaluation phase of this near decade-long program are discussed., Study Design: A descriptive overview of the summative research design and its development for a multi-site, community-based, healthcare quality improvement initiative is provided., Methods: The summative research design employed by the evaluation team is discussed., Results: The evaluation team's summative research design involved a data-driven assessment of the effectiveness of the AF4Q program at large, assessments of the impact of AF4Q in the specific programmatic areas, and an assessment of how the AF4Q alliances were positioned for the future at the end of the program., Conclusion: The AF4Q initiative was the largest privately funded community-based healthcare improvement initiative in the United States to date and was implemented at a time of rapid change in national healthcare policy. The implementation of large-scale, multi-site initiatives is becoming an increasingly common approach for addressing problems in healthcare. The summative evaluation research design for the AF4Q initiative, and the lessons learned from its approach, may be valuable to others tasked with evaluating similarly complex community-based initiatives.

Objective: A key component of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) program was engaging consumers in their health and healthcare. We examined the extent to which the alliances embraced 4 areas of consumer engagement: self-management, consumer friendliness of reports of healthcare provider quality, involvement of consumers in alliance governance, and the integration of consumers into quality improvement teams., Methods: We used a largely qualitative approach. The evaluation team conducted 1100 in-depth interviews with alliance stakeholders. Two authors reviewed the consumer engagement data for each alliance to assess its level of embrace in the 4 consumer engagement areas. For consumer friendliness of public reporting websites, we also assessed alliance public reports for reading level, technical language, and evaluable displays. Population-level effects were also examined for self-management and public reporting., Results: Consumer engagement was new to most alliances, and few had staff with consumer engagement expertise or existing consumer constituencies. For each area of consumer engagement, some alliances enthusiastically embraced the work, other alliances made a concerted but limited effort to develop programs, and a third group of alliances did the minimum work required. Integrating consumers into governance was the area most often embraced, followed by making public reports consumer friendly. Two alliances strongly embraced both self-management and integrating patients into quality improvement efforts. The AF4Q program did not have greater population level effects from self-management or public reporting than were those observed in a national comparison sample., Conclusion: The AF4Q program sparked a few alliances to develop robust consumer engagement programming, while most alliances tried consumer engagement efforts for the first time and developed an appreciation for integrating consumer perspectives into their work.

Objective: To summarize the results from the quantitative analyses conducted during the summative evaluation of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative., Study Design: Longitudinal design using linear difference-in-difference (DD) regression models with fixed effects. Outcomes were selected based on the AF4Q program logic model and organized according to the categories of the Triple Aim: improving population health, improving quality and experience of care, and reducing the cost of care., Data: Two primary data sources: the AF4Q Consumer Survey and the National Study of Physician Organizations (NSPO); and 4 secondary data sources: the Dartmouth Atlas Medicare claims database, the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims database, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS)., Results: In total, 144 outcomes were analyzed, 27 were associated with improving population health, 87 were associated with improving care quality and experience, and 30 were associated with reducing the cost of care. Based on the estimated DD coefficients, there is no consistent evidence that AF4Q regions, over the life of the program, showed greater improvement in these measures compared with the rest of the United States. For less than 12% of outcomes (17/144), the AF4Q initiative was associated with a significant positive impact (P ≤.05), although the magnitude of the impact was often small. Among the remaining outcomes, with some exceptions, similarly improving trends were observed in both AF4Q and non-AF4Q areas over the period of intervention. Conclusion and Policy and Practice Implications: Our quantitative findings, which suggest that the AF4Q initiative had less impact than expected, are potentially due to the numerous other efforts to improve healthcare across the United States, including regions outside the AF4Q program over the same period of time. The limited overall impact may also be due to the variability in the "dose" of the interventions across AF4Q regions. However, these results should not be interpreted as a conclusive statement about the AF4Q initiative. More nuanced discussions of the implementation of interventions in the specific AF4Q programmatic areas and their potential success (or lack thereof) in the participating communities are included in other articles in this supplement.

Background: Multi-stakeholder alliances - groups of payers, purchasers, providers, and consumers that work together to address local health goals - are frequently used to improve health care quality within communities. Under the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative, multi-stakeholder alliances were given funding and technical assistance to encourage the use of health information technology (HIT) to improve quality. We investigated whether HIT adoption was greater in AF4Q communities than in other communities., Methods: Drawing upon survey data from 782 small and medium-sized physician practices collected as part of the National Study of Physician Organizations during July 2007 - March 2009 and January 2012-November 2013, we used weighted fixed effects models to detect relative changes in four measures representing three domains: use of electronic health records (EHRs), receipt of electronic information from hospitals, and patients' online access to their medical records., Results: Improvement on a composite EHR adoption measure was 7.6 percentage points greater in AF4Q communities than in non-AF4Q communities, and the increase in the probability of adopting all five EHR capabilities was 23.9 percentage points greater in AF4Q communities. There was no significant difference in improvement in receipt of electronic information from hospitals or patients' online access to medical records between AF4Q and non-AF4Q communities., Conclusion: By linking HIT to quality improvement efforts, AF4Q alliances may have facilitated greater adoption of EHRs in small and medium-sized physician practices, but not receipt of electronic information from hospitals or patients' online access to medical records., Implications: Multi-stakeholder alliances charged with promoting HIT to advance quality improvement may accelerate adoption of EHRs., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although intervention dose-defined as the quality and quantity of an intervention and participation-might be key to understanding why some multisite quality improvement (QI) initiatives work and others do not, evaluations rarely consider dose, and there is no widely accepted method for measuring it. In this exploratory study, the authors examined the literature on QI dose, identified four methods for measuring QI dose, applied them to 14 communities participating in a QI initiative, examined whether the dose scores aligned with perceptions of QI dose among individuals knowledgeable of the initiative, and report on lessons learned. They conclude it is feasible to measure QI dose and found a high level of concordance between scores on a comprehensive dose measure and knowledgeable informants' perceptions. However, measuring QI dose presents many challenges, including subjective decisions about the elements of dose to include in a measure and the need for extensive data collection., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Objective: To determine whether chronically ill adults from communities participating in a community-level quality improvement effort reported greater improvement on four domains of patient experience: care coordination, patient satisfaction, provider interaction and support, and receipt of recommended care for diabetes., Study Setting: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative provides multistakeholder alliances with funding and technical assistance to improve quality in their communities., Study Design: This is a quasi-experimental, pre-post study. We used a difference-in-difference approach to detect relative changes over time on 16 survey-based outcome measures representing the four patient experience domains., Data Collection: We surveyed adults with chronic illness(es) in 14 AF4Q communities and a national comparison group. Wave 1 was completed in 2008 (8,140 respondents) and wave 2 in 2012 (9,565 respondents)., Principal Findings: Respondents from AF4Q communities reported modestly greater improvement on patient satisfaction and receipt of recommended care for diabetes., Conclusions: Results suggest that community-level QI efforts led by multistakeholder alliances hold the potential to improve patient satisfaction and receipt of recommended care for diabetes, but the magnitude of the effect may be limited. However, there is less evidence that community-level QI can improve patient perceptions of care coordination or provider interaction and support., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objective: The Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) signature effort to increase the overall quality of healthcare in targeted communities throughout the country. In addition to sponsoring this 16-site, complex program, the RWJF funds an independent scientific evaluation to support objective research on the initiative's effectiveness and contributions to basic knowledge in 5 core programmatic areas. The research design, data, and challenges faced in the evaluation of this 10-year initiative are discussed., Study Design: A descriptive overview of the evaluation research design for a multi-site, community based, healthcare quality improvement initiative is provided., Methods: The multiphase research design employed by the evaluation team is discussed., Results: Evaluation provides formative feedback to the RWJF, participants, and other interested audiences in real time; develops approaches to assess innovative and under-studied interventions; furthers the analysis and understanding of effective community-based collaborative work in healthcare; and helps to differentiate the various facilitators, barriers, and contextual dimensions that affect the implementation and outcomes of community-based health interventions., Conclusions: The AF4Q initiative is arguably the largest community-level healthcare improvement demonstration in the United States to date; it is being implemented at a time of rapid change in national healthcare policy. The implementation of large-scale, multi-site initiatives is becoming an increasingly common approach for addressing problems in healthcare. The evaluation research design for the AF4Q initiative, and the lessons learned from its approach, may be valuable to others tasked with evaluating similar community-based initiatives.