Virtual practice facilitation as an implementation strategy for launching opioid safety committees for quality improvement in primary care: feasibility, acceptability, and intervention fidelity.

Background: Practice facilitation (PF) is an evidence-based multicomponent in-person implementation strategy. COVID-19-related lockdowns caused many implementation initiatives to rapidly shift to virtual settings, but there is limited evidence on PF deployed exclusively using virtual meeting platforms. Our objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of virtual PF used in a primary care setting to implement interdisciplinary opioid safety committees (OSCs) to improve care for patients using opioid medicines for persistent pain and reduce high-dose opioid prescribing. We also describe alignment of virtual PF with the core functions of PF and fidelity of participating clinics to the OSC intervention. Methods: We applied qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate virtual PF used to implement a quality improvement project at Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington State. We established interdisciplinary OSCs in primary care clinics using virtual PF. OSCs were tasked with promoting opioid safety and high-quality pain care through population management and chart reviews. We used administrative data to calculate feasibility measures including attendance and retention. Acceptability data came from interviews with OSC members conducted by evaluators. Measures of fidelity to the OSC intervention were abstracted from meeting notes and administrative data. We used qualitative methods to assess the adherence of virtual PF to the core functions of PF. Results: Facilitators carried out a comprehensive PF approach virtually and demonstrated adherence to the core functions of PF. We established OSCs in eight clinics and conducted an average of 17.5 virtual PF meetings over eight months of PF for each clinic. Average attendance was 75% and we had 84% retention. OSC members were highly satisfied with virtual PF. Facilitators effectively supported teams through implementation and technical challenges and OSC members gained skills through virtual PF. We implemented OSCs with high fidelity, suggesting virtual PF is an effective implementation strategy. Conclusions: We found virtual PF is a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy for this intervention and identified strategies to support care teams through challenges. Our findings can help inform future implementation efforts, especially those hoping to engage geographically dispersed clinics or remote clinical staff. Trial registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]