A multilevel analysis of changing telehealth availability in opioid use disorder treatment settings: Conditional effects of rurality, the number and types of medication for opioid use disorder available, and time, US, 2016-2023.

PURPOSE: The opioid overdose crisis requires strengthening treatment systems with innovative technologies. How people use telehealth for opioid use disorder (OUD) is evolving and differs in rural versus urban areas, as telehealth is emerging as a local resource and complementary option to in-person treatment. We assessed changing trends in telehealth and medication for OUD (MOUD) and pinpoint locations of low telehealth and MOUD access. METHODS: We used national data from the Mental health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository (2016-2023) to identify specialty outpatient SUD treatment facilities in the United States (N = 83,988). We modeled the availability of telehealth using multilevel multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for covariates. We included a 3-way interaction to test for conditional effects of rurality, the number of MOUD medication types dispensed, and year. We included two random effects to account for clustering within counties and states. FINDINGS: We identified 495 facilities that offered both telehealth and all three MOUD medication types (methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone) in 2023, clustered in the eastern United States. We identified a statistically significant 3-way interaction (p < 0.0001), indicating that telehealth in facilities that did not offer MOUD shifted from more telehealth in rural facilities in earlier years to more telehealth in urban facilities in later years. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment facilities that offer both telehealth and all three MOUD medication types may improve access for hard-to-reach populations. We stress the importance of continued health system strengthening and technological resources in vulnerable rural communities, while acknowledging a changing landscape of increased OUD incidence and MOUD demand in urban communities.

Alcohol-based decontamination of gloved hands: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The gold standard for hand hygiene (HH) while wearing gloves requires removing gloves, performing HH, and donning new gloves between WHO moments. The novel strategy of applying alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) directly to gloved hands might be effective and efficient. DESIGN: A mixed-method, multicenter, 3-arm, randomized trial. SETTING: Adult and pediatric medical-surgical, intermediate, and intensive care units at 4 hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare personnel (HCP). INTERVENTIONS: HCP were randomized to 3 groups: ABHR applied directly to gloved hands, the current standard, or usual care. METHODS: Gloved hands were sampled via direct imprint. Gold-standard and usual-care arms were compared with the ABHR intervention. RESULTS: Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 432 (67.4%) of 641 observations in the gold-standard arm versus 548 (82.8%) of 662 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). HH required a mean of 14 seconds in the intervention and a mean of 28.7 seconds in the gold-standard arm (P < .01). Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 133 (98.5%) of 135 observations in the usual-care arm versus 173 (76.6%) of 226 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). Of 331 gloves tested 6 (1.8%) were found to have microperforations; all were identified in the intervention arm [6 (2.9%) of 205]. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, contamination of gloved hands was significantly reduced by applying ABHR directly to gloved hands but statistically higher than the gold standard. Given time savings and microbiological benefit over usual care and lack of feasibility of adhering to the gold standard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization should consider advising HCP to decontaminate gloved hands with ABHR when HH moments arise during single-patient encounters.Trial Registration: NCT03445676.

Temporal Trends in Telehealth Availability in Mental Health Treatment Settings: Differences in Growth by State Rurality, 2015-2020.

We sought to investigate temporal trends in telehealth availability among outpatient mental health treatment facilities and differences in the pace of telehealth growth by state urbanicity and rurality. We used the National Mental Health Services Survey (2015-2020) to identify outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the US (N = 28,989 facilities; 2015 n = 5,018; 2020 n = 4,889). We used logistic regression to model telehealth, predicted by time, state rurality (1 to 10% rural, 10 to < 20%, 20 to < 30%, or [Formula: see text] 30%), and their interaction, and adjusted for relevant covariates. We estimated the predicted probability of telehealth based on our model. We estimated effects with and without data from 2020 to assess whether the rapid and widespread adoption of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic changed the rural/urban trajectories of telehealth availability. We found that telehealth grew fastest in more urban states (year*rurality interaction p < 0.0001). Between 2015 and 2020, the predicted probability of telehealth in more urban states increased by 51 percentage points (from 9 to 61%), whereas telehealth in more rural states increased by 38 percentage points (from 23 to 61%). Predicted telehealth also varied widely by state, ranging from more than 75% of facilities (RI, OR) to below 20% (VT, KY). Health systems and new technological innovations must consider the unique challenges faced by urban populations and how best practices may be adapted to meet the growing urban demand. We framed our findings around the need for policies that minimize barriers to telehealth.

Direct Gloving vs Hand Hygiene Before Donning Gloves in Adherence to Hospital Infection Control Practices: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current guidelines require hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves, but evidence to support this requirement is lacking. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a direct-gloving policy on adherence to infection prevention practices in a hospital setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-method, multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 4 academic centers in Baltimore, Maryland, or Iowa City, Iowa, from January 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Data analysis was completed April 25, 2019. Participants were 3790 health care personnel (HCP) across 13 hospital units. Intervention: Hospital units were randomly assigned to direct gloving, with hand hygiene not required before donning gloves (intervention), or to usual care (hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the expected practice at room entry and exit. A random sample of HCPs' gloved hands were imprinted on agar plates at entry to contact precautions rooms. The intention-to-treat approach was followed, and all analyses were conducted at the level of the participating unit. Primary and secondary outcomes between treatment groups were assessed using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured working correlation matrix to adjust for clustering; multivariate analysis using generalized estimating equations was conducted to adjust for covariates, including baseline adherence. Results: In total, 13 hospital units participated in the trial, and 3790 HCP were observed. Adherence to expected practice was greater in the 6 units with the direct-gloving intervention than in the 7 usual care units (1297 of 1491 [87%] vs 954 of 2299 [41%]; P < .001) even when controlling for baseline hand hygiene rates, unit type, and universal gloving policies (risk ratio [RR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.58-1.97). Glove use on entry to contact precautions rooms was also higher in the direct-gloving units (1297 of 1491 [87%] vs 1530 of 2299 [67%]; P = .008. The intervention had no effect on hand hygiene adherence measured at entry to non-contact precautions rooms (951 of 1315 [72%] for usual care vs 1111 of 1688 [66%] for direct gloving; RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91-1.10]) or at room exit (1587 of 1897 [84%] for usual care vs 1525 of 1785 [85%] for direct gloving; RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.07]). The intervention was associated with increased total bacteria colony counts (adjusted incidence RR, 7.13; 95% CI, 3.95-12.85) and greater detection of pathogenic bacteria (adjusted incidence RR, 10.18; 95% CI, 2.13-44.94) on gloves in the emergency department and reduced colony counts in pediatrics units (adjusted incidence RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.63), with no change in either total colony count (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.25] for adult intensive care unit; RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.31-1.10] for hemodialysis unit) or presence of pathogenic bacteria (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.40-2.14] for adult intensive care unit; RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04] for hemodialysis unit) in the other units. Conclusions and Relevance: Current guidelines require hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves, but evidence to support this requirement is lacking. The findings from this cluster randomized clinical trial indicate that a direct-gloving strategy without prior hand hygiene should be considered by health care facilities. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03119389.

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs during a Health Crisis: Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Future Implications.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed how substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services are delivered. In this qualitative study, we examined what changes SUD treatment programs in Arkansas implemented in response to the pandemic, what factors influenced their ability to implement these changes, and their reflections, outlook, and future recommendations. Methods: Between May and August 2020, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 29 leaders at 21 SUD programs throughout Arkansas. Interview questions focused on what changes programs implemented in response to the pandemic, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and future outlook. Interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: Programs implemented similar infection control practices, including COVID-19 screening at entry, masks, hand hygiene, and social distancing. Residential programs discontinued outside visitations and capped admissions, and outpatient programs implemented telehealth services. Clients generally responded well to the changes, however many experienced difficulties (e.g., anxiety, lack of access to telehealth). While programs welcomed additional financial support (e.g., CARES act) and looser regulatory restrictions (e.g., telehealth use), many struggled economically due to lower demand and insufficient reimbursement. Programs varied in leadership and staff responses to the pandemic, and in their capacity to implement the changes (e.g., facilities, staffing). Finally, interviewees acknowledged they were unprepared for the pandemic and were uncertain about the future. Conclusions: The insights from the COVID-19 pandemic and SUD programs' responses helps researchers, policymakers and practitioners understand what has happened during the pandemic, how to prepare for future crises, and how to build more resilient SUD and public health systems.

Toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on implementation: the organization theory for implementation science framework.

Introduction: Implementation is influenced by factors beyond individual clinical settings. Nevertheless, implementation research often focuses on factors related to individual providers and practices, potentially due to limitations of available frameworks. Extant frameworks do not adequately capture the myriad organizational influences on implementation. Organization theories capture diverse organizational influences but remain underused in implementation science. To advance their use among implementation scientists, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories identified in our previous work into theoretical domains in the Organization Theory for Implementation Science (OTIS) framework. Methods: The process of distilling organization theory constructs into domains involved concept mapping and iterative consensus-building. First, we recruited organization and implementation scientists to participate in an online concept mapping exercise in which they sorted organization theory constructs into domains representing similar theoretical concepts. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses were used to produce visual representations (clusters) of the relationships among constructs in concept maps. Second, to interpret concept maps, we engaged members of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) OTIS workgroup in consensus-building discussions. Results: Twenty-four experts participated in concept mapping. Based on resulting construct groupings' coherence, OTIS workgroup members selected the 10-cluster solution (from options of 7-13 clusters) and then reorganized clusters in consensus-building discussions to increase coherence. This process yielded six final OTIS domains: organizational characteristics (e.g., size; age); governance and operations (e.g., organizational and social subsystems); tasks and processes (e.g., technology cycles; excess capacity); knowledge and learning (e.g., tacit knowledge; sense making); characteristics of a population of organizations (e.g., isomorphism; selection pressure); and interorganizational relationships (e.g., dominance; interdependence). Discussion: Organizational influences on implementation are poorly understood, in part due to the limitations of extant frameworks. To improve understanding of organizational influences on implementation, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories into six domains. Applications of the OTIS framework will enhance understanding of organizational influences on implementation, promote theory-driven strategies for organizational change, improve understanding of mechanisms underlying relationships between OTIS constructs and implementation, and allow for framework refinement. Next steps include testing the OTIS framework in implementation research and adapting it for use among policymakers and practitioners.

Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) in the pre-implementation phase: key steps and activities.

Background: Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) involves researchers and local partners working collaboratively to support the uptake of an evidence-based intervention (EBI). To date, EBQI has not been consistently included in community-engaged dissemination and implementation literature. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the steps, activities, and outputs of EBQI in the pre-implementation phase. Methods: The research team applied comparative case study methods to describe key steps, activities, and outputs of EBQI across seven projects. Our approach included: (1) specification of research questions, (2) selection of cases, (3) construction of a case codebook, (4) coding of cases using the codebook, and (5) comparison of cases. Results: The cases selected included five distinct settings (e.g., correction facilities, community pharmacies), seven EBIs (e.g., nutrition promotion curriculum, cognitive processing therapy) and five unique lead authors. Case examples include both community-embedded and clinically-oriented projects. Key steps in the EBQI process included: (1) forming a local team of partners and experts, (2) prioritizing implementation determinants based on existing literature/data, (3) selecting strategies and/or adaptations in the context of key determinants, (4) specifying selected strategies/adaptations, and (5) refining strategies/adaptations. Examples of activities are included to illustrate how each step was achieved. Outputs included prioritized determinants, EBI adaptations, and implementation strategies. Conclusions: A primary contribution of our comparative case study is the delineation of various steps and activities of EBQI, which may contribute to the replicability of the EBQI process across other implementation research projects.

Unfamiliar personal protective equipment: The role of routine practice and other factors affecting healthcare personnel doffing strategies.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel (HCP) may encounter unfamiliar personal protective equipment (PPE) during clinical duties, yet we know little about their doffing strategies in such situations. OBJECTIVE: To better understand how HCP navigate encounters with unfamiliar PPE and the factors that influence their doffing strategies. SETTING: The study was conducted at 2 Midwestern academic hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 70 HCP: 24 physicians and resident physicians, 31 nurses, 5 medical or nursing students, and 10 other staff. Among them, 20 had special isolation unit training. METHODS: Participants completed 1 of 4 doffing simulation scenarios involving 3 mask designs, 2 gown designs, 2 glove designs, and a full PPE ensemble. Doffing simulations were video-recorded and reviewed with participants during think-aloud interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified familiarity with PPE items and designs as an important factor in doffing. When encountering unfamiliar PPE, participants cited aspects of their routine practices such as designs typically used, donning and doffing frequency, and design cues, and their training as impacting their doffing strategies. Furthermore, they identified nonintuitive design and lack of training as barriers to doffing unfamiliar PPE appropriately. CONCLUSION: PPE designs may not be interchangeable, and their use may not be intuitive. HCP drew on routine practices, experiences with familiar PPE, and training to adapt doffing strategies for unfamiliar PPE. In doing so, HCP sometimes deviated from best practices meant to prevent self-contamination. Hospital policies and procedures should include ongoing and/or just-in-time training to ensure HCP are equipped to doff different PPE designs encountered during clinical care.

Barriers and facilitators to HIV care engagement: Recommendations from people with HIV in rural Arkansas.

PURPOSE: Little is known about factors affecting HIV care engagement and retention among rural people with HIV (PWH) in the South. About half of PWH in Arkansas reside in rural areas. The purpose of this study was to explore factors affecting engagement and retention in HIV care among PWH in rural areas of Arkansas. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study in 2020 and completed individual interviews (N = 11) with PWH in rural counties in Arkansas. FINDINGS: Content analysis revealed the following themes: (1) Barriers to HIV care included long distances to the nearest HIV clinic and transportation issues along with anticipating and/or experiencing HIV-related stigma; (2) facilitators of HIV care included having a helpful HIV care provider and Ryan White case manager and a social support network that aided them in prioritizing their own health; (3) participants had the most favorable reactions to Ryan White case management, peer navigators, and telemedicine for HIV treatment/care; and (4) participants demonstrated resilience overcoming various obstacles as they worked toward being healthy mentally and physically while living with HIV. CONCLUSION: Interventions need to address multilevel factors, including hiring PWH as peer navigators and/or caseworkers and offering HIV care via telemedicine, to improve HIV care engagement and retention among rural populations.

Al-Anon Intensive Referral (AIR): A qualitative formative evaluation for implementation.

INTRODUCTION: The Al-Anon mutual-help program helps concerned others (COs; e.g., families, friends) of persons with excessive alcohol use. Despite widespread availability of Al-Anon meetings, participation is limited and little is known about how to best facilitate engagement. Al-Anon Intensive Referral (AIR) was developed to facilitate COs' engagement in Al-Anon and is being tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Toward the end of the recruitment for the RCT, a qualitative formative evaluation was conducted to learn about facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for AIR implementation in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment clinics. METHODS: Thirty-one directors and staff at ten VA and community SUD clinics were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and were thematically analyzed to identify facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for AIR implementation. RESULTS: Perceived facilitators of AIR implementation included AIR's face validity, adaptability, and alignment with staff values and skills, requiring only minimal training. Several interviewees in community settings thought AIR would fit with their current practices (e.g., family groups), and some clinics reported having sufficient staff available for delivering AIR. Perceived barriers included limited staff time, and VA clinics having limited resources for providing services to COs. Furthermore, many clients have no COs, or COs who are unwilling or unable to engage with them. Recommendations included fitting AIR within existing workflows and focusing on COs with highest readiness to receive support. Interviewees also thought AIR could be adapted to a website format or smartphone app, which may expand its reach while decreasing staff burden and cost; however, it may not be as effective and appealing to some demographic groups (e.g., older COs). CONCLUSIONS: AIR has strong potential for implementation in SUD treatment settings, but clinics vary on implementation capacity. Most clinics could implement AIR partially (e.g., case-by-case basis) while clinics with sufficient capacity (e.g., staff time) could implement it more fully. These findings can also inform implementation of other interventions for concerned others.

What Influences Sustainment and Nonsustainment of Facilitation Activities in Implementation? Analysis of Organizational Factors in Hospitals Implementing TeamSTEPPS.

Implementation processes are often long and complex, requiring sustained facilitation efforts. Drawing on organizational and implementation literature, we examined the influence of senior management support (SMS), middle management support (MMS), facilitator team time availability (TIME) and team continuity (CONTINUITY) on sustainment of internal facilitation activities. For 2 years, we followed 10 small rural hospitals implementing TeamSTEPPS, a patient safety program, and conducted quarterly interviews with key informants. We coded, calibrated, and analyzed the data using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. We found that five hospitals sustained facilitation activities and the combination of SMS, MMS, and CONTINUITY (i.e., presence of all three factors) was a sufficient condition for sustainment. Five other hospitals did not sustain facilitation activities and they either lacked MMS or lacked both TIME and CONTINUITY. In follow-up analyses, we found that team leadership continuity also influenced sustainment patterns. We discussed the implications for research and practice.

Mobilising cross-sector collaborations to improve population health in US rural communities: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines types and forms of cross-sector collaborations employed by rural communities to address community health issues and identifies factors facilitating or inhibiting such collaborations. SETTING: We conducted case studies of four rural communities in the US state of Iowa that have demonstrated progress in creating healthier communities. PARTICIPANTS: Key informants from local public health departments, hospitals and other health-promoting organisations and groups participated in this study. Twenty-two key-informant interviews were conducted. Participants were selected based on their organisation's involvement in community health initiatives. RESULTS: Rural communities used different forms of collaborations, including cross-sector partnership, cross-sector interaction and cross-sector exploration, to address community health issues. Stakeholders from public health, healthcare, social services, education and business sectors were involved. Factors facilitating cross-sector collaborations include health-promoting local contexts, seed initiatives that mobilise communities, hospital visions that embrace broad views of health and shared collaboration leadership and governance. Challenges to developing and sustaining cross-sector collaborations include different institutional logics, financial and human resources constraints and geographic dispersion. CONCLUSIONS: Rural communities use cross-sector collaborations to address community health issues in the forms of interaction and exploration, but real and lasting partnerships are rare. The development, operation and sustainment of cross-sector collaborations are influenced by a set of contextual and practical factors. Practical strategies and policy interventions may be used to enhance cross-sector collaborations in rural communities.

Healthcare Workers' Strategies for Doffing Personal Protective Equipment.

BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) helps protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from pathogens and prevents cross-contamination. PPE effectiveness is often undermined by inappropriate doffing methods. Our knowledge of how HCWs approach doffing PPE in practice is limited. In this qualitative study, we examine HCWs' perspectives about doffing PPE. METHODS: Thirty participants at a Midwestern academic hospital were recruited and assigned to 1 of 3 doffing simulation scenarios: 3 mask designs (n = 10), 2 gown designs (n = 10), or 2 glove designs (n = 10). Participants were instructed to doff PPE as they would in routine practice. Their performances were video-recorded and reviewed with participants. Semistructured interviews about their doffing approaches were conducted and audio-recorded, then transcribed and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified in interviews: doffing strategies, cognitive processes, and barriers and facilitators. Doffing strategies included doffing safely (minimizing self-contamination) and doffing expediently (eg, ripping PPE off). Cognitive processes during doffing largely pertained to tracking contaminated PPE surfaces, examining PPE design cues (eg, straps), or improvising based on prior experience from training or similar PPE designs. Doffing barriers and facilitators typically related to PPE design, such as PPE fit (or lack of it) and fastener type. Some participants also described personal barriers (eg, glasses, long hair); however, some PPE designs helped mitigate these barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve HCWs' doffing performance need to address HCWs' preferences for both safety and expediency when using PPE, which has implications for PPE design, training approaches, and hospital policies and procedures.

Hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves: Healthcareworkers' beliefs and practices.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the perceptions and beliefs of health care workers (HCWs) regarding glove use and associated hand hygiene (HH) may be informative and ultimately improve practice. Research in this area is limited. This study examined the practices and beliefs of HCWs surrounding the use of nonsterile gloves and HH before gloving. METHODS: The study was conducted at 3 large academic US hospitals using a parallel convergent mixed-method design. To estimate compliance rates, the gloving and HH practices of HCWs were observed at entry to patient rooms for 6 months. Interviews were conducted with 25 providers, nurses, and nursing assistants to investigate their beliefs and perceptions of these practices. RESULTS: Observed HH compliance rates before gloving were 42%, yet in the interviews most HCWs reported 100% compliance. Observed compliance with gloving before entering contact precaution rooms was 78%, although all HCWs reported always gloving for standard and contact precautions. Most HCWs described using gloves more often than necessary. HCWs generally use gloves for their own safety and sanitize hands before gloving for patient safety. Numerous barriers to compliance with HH before gloving were discussed, including beliefs that gloves provide enough protection. CONCLUSIONS: HH and glove use are highly intertwined in clinical practice and should be considered jointly in infection prevention improvement efforts.

Types of internal facilitation activities in hospitals implementing evidence-based interventions.

BACKGROUND: Implementation models, frameworks, and theories recognize the importance of activities that facilitate implementation success. However, little is known about internal facilitation activities that hospital personnel engage in during implementation efforts. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine internal facilitation activities at 10 critical access hospitals in rural Iowa during their implementation of TeamSTEPPS, a patient safety intervention, and to identify characteristics that distinguish different types of facilitation activities. METHODS: We followed 10 critical access hospitals for 2 years after the onset of implementation, conducting quarterly interviews with key informants. On the basis of the transcripts from the first two quarters, a coding template was developed using inductive analyses. The template was then applied deductively to code all interview transcripts. Using comparative analysis, we examined the characteristics that distinguish between the facilitation types. RESULTS: We identified four types of facilitation activities-Leadership, Buy-in, Customization, and Accountability. Individuals and teams engaged in different types of facilitation activities, both in a planned and an ad hoc manner. These activities targeted at both people and practices and exhibited varying temporal patterns (start and peak time). CONCLUSION: There are four types of facilitation activities that hospitals engage in while implementing evidence-based practices, offering a parsimonious way to characterize facilitation activities. New theoretical and empirical research opportunities are discussed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Understanding the types of facilitation activities and their distinguishing characteristics can assist managers in planning and executing implementations of evidence-based interventions.

Implementing team huddles in small rural hospitals: How does the Kotter model of change apply?

AIMS: To examine how the process of change prescribed in Kotter's change model applies in implementing team huddles, and to assess the impact of the execution of early change phases on change success in later phases. BACKGROUND: Kotter's model can help to guide hospital leaders to implement change and potentially to improve success rates. However, the model is under studied, particularly in health care. METHODS: We followed eight hospitals implementing team huddles for 2 years, interviewing the change teams quarterly to inquire about implementation progress. We assessed how the hospitals performed in the three overarching phases of the Kotter model, and examined whether performance in the initial phase influenced subsequent performance. RESULTS: In half of the hospitals, change processes were congruent with Kotter's model, where performance in the initial phase influenced their success in subsequent phases. In other hospitals, change processes were incongruent with the model, and their success depended on implementation scope and the strategies employed. CONCLUSIONS: We found mixed support for the Kotter model. It better fits implementation that aims to spread to multiple hospital units. When the scope is limited, changes can be successful even when steps are skipped. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Kotter's model can be a useful guide for nurse managers implementing changes.

Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework applied to TeamSTEPPS implementation in small rural hospitals.

BACKGROUND: A particularly useful model for examining implementation of quality improvement interventions in health care settings is the PARIHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework developed by Kitson and colleagues. The PARIHS framework proposes three elements (evidence, context, and facilitation) that are related to successful implementation. PURPOSES: An evidence-based program focused on quality enhancement in health care, termed TeamSTEPPS (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), has been widely promoted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, but research is needed to better understand its implementation. We apply the PARIHS framework in studying TeamSTEPPS implementation to identify elements that are most closely related to successful implementation. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Quarterly interviews were conducted over a 9-month period in 13 small rural hospitals that implemented TeamSTEPPS. Interview quotes that were related to each of the PARIHS elements were identified using directed content analysis. Transcripts were also scored quantitatively, and bivariate regression analysis was employed to explore relationships between PARIHS elements and successful implementation related to planning activities. FINDINGS: The current findings provide support for the PARIHS framework and identified two of the three PARIHS elements (context and facilitation) as important contributors to successful implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study applies the PARIHS framework to TeamSTEPPS, a widely used quality initiative focused on improving health care quality and patient safety. By focusing on small rural hospitals that undertook this quality improvement activity of their own accord, our findings represent effectiveness research in an understudied segment of the health care delivery system. By identifying context and facilitation as the most important contributors to successful implementation, these analyses provide a focus for efficient and effective sustainment of TeamSTEPPS efforts.

Surgical Patient Safety Outcomes in Critical Access Hospitals: How Do They Compare?

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine whether Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), the predominant type of hospital in small and isolated rural areas, perform better than, the same as, or worse than Prospective Payment System (PPS) hospitals on measures of quality. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases and American Hospital Association annual survey data were used for analyses. A total of 35,674 discharges from 136 nonfederal general hospitals with fewer than 50 beds were included in the analyses: 14,296 from 100 CAHs and 21,378 from 36 PPS hospitals. Outcome measures included 6 bivariate indicators of adverse events (including complications) of surgical care developed from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators. Multiple logistic regression models were developed to examine the relationship between hospital adverse events and CAH status. FINDINGS: Compared with PPS hospitals, CAHs are significantly less likely to have any observed (unadjusted) adverse event on 4 of the 6 indicators. After adjusting for patient mix and hospital characteristics, CAHs perform better on 3 of the 6 indicators. Accounting for the number of discharges eliminated the differences between CAHs and PPS hospitals in the likelihood of adverse events across all indicators except one. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests there are no differences in surgical patient safety outcomes between CAHs and PPS hospitals of comparable size. This reinforces the central role of CAHs in providing quality surgical care to populations in rural and isolated areas, and underscores the importance of strategies to sustain rural surgery infrastructure.

Critical Access Hospital Use of TeamSTEPPS to Implement Shift-Change Handoff Communication.

Implementation of handoff as part of TeamSTEPPS initiatives for improving shift-change communication is examined via qualitative analysis of on-site interviews and process observations in 8 critical access hospitals. Comparing implementation attributes and handoff performance across hospitals shows that the purpose of implementation did not differentiate between high and low performance, but facilitators and barriers did. Staff involvement and being part of the "big picture" were important facilitators to change management and buy-in.

Deliberation Makes a Difference: Preparation Strategies for TeamSTEPPS Implementation in Small and Rural Hospitals.

Small and rural hospitals face special challenges to implement and sustain organization-wide quality improvement (QI) initiatives due to limited resources and infrastructures. We studied the implementation of TeamSTEPPS, a national QI initiative, in 14 critical access hospitals. Drawing on QI and organization development theories, we propose five strategic preparation steps for TeamSTEPPS: assess needs, reflect on the context, set goals, develop a shared understanding, and select change agents. We explore how hospitals' practices correspond to suggested best practices by analyzing qualitative data collected through quarterly interviews with key informants. We find that the level of deliberation was a key factor that differentiated hospitals' practices. Hospitals that were more deliberate in preparing for the five strategic steps were more likely to experience engagement, perceive efficacy, foresee and manage barriers, and achieve progress during implementation. We discuss potential steps that hospitals may take to better prepare for TeamSTEPPS implementation.