Getting to Fidelity: Consensus Development Process to Identify Core Activities of Implementation Facilitation.

Transferring successful implementation strategies from research to practice requires approaches for assessing fidelity to the strategy's core components. Implementation facilitation (IF) is a strategy involving an interactive process of problem-solving, enabling, and supporting individuals in efforts to implement clinical innovations that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and supportive interpersonal relationships. Because IF is a dynamic strategy involving numerous activities, our objective was to conduct a rigorous consensus development process to identify core activities for monitoring fidelity to IF when applied in clinical settings. We first conducted a scoping literature review to identify the range of activities used when IF has been applied in clinical settings, searching multiple citation databases for English-language articles including "facilitation" or other commonly-used terms for the strategy published from 1996-2015. Through multi-stage screening, 135 articles (from 94 studies) were identified for data extraction on IF activities, frequency with which IF activities were identified as 'core' by study authors, and study outcomes. From the literature review, we identified 32 distinct IF activities and developed definitions/examples for each. Next, we conducted a 3-stage, modified-Delphi expert panel consensus development process to identify core IF activities across three implementation phases (i.e., Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Sustainment). The expert panel identified 8 core activities for the Pre-Implementation Phase, 8 core activities for the Implementation Phase, and 4 core activities for the Sustainment Phase. This work provides an important foundation for developing measures/tools to assess use of core IF activities to ensure the strategy is delivered with fidelity.

Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation.

Background: Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource. Methods: We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with "facilitation" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection. Findings: The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software. Conclusion: We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend "best" practices for its use as an implementation strategy. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient's organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Facilitating implementation of primary care mental health over time and across organizational contexts: a qualitative study of role and process.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations have increasingly utilized facilitation to improve implementation of evidence-based practices and programs (e.g., primary care mental health integration). Facilitation is both a role, related to the purpose of facilitation, and a process, i.e., how a facilitator operationalizes the role. Scholars continue to call for a better understanding of this implementation strategy. Although facilitation is described as dynamic, activities are often framed within the context of a staged process. We explored two understudied characteristics of implementation facilitation: 1) how facilitation activities change over time and in response to context, and 2) how facilitators operationalize their role when the purpose of facilitation is both task-focused (i.e., to support implementation) and holistic (i.e., to build capacity for future implementation efforts). METHODS: We conducted individual monthly debriefings over thirty months with facilitators who were supporting PCMHI implementation in two VA networks. We developed a list of facilitation activities based on a literature review and debriefing notes and conducted a content analysis of debriefing notes by coding what activities occurred and their intensity by quarter. We also coded whether facilitators were "doing" these activities for sites or "enabling" sites to perform them. RESULTS: Implementation facilitation activities did not occur according to a defined series of ordered steps but in response to specific organizational contexts through a non-linear and incremental process. Amount and types of activities varied between the networks. Concordant with facilitators' planned role, the focus of some facilitation activities was primarily on doing them for the sites and others on enabling sites to do for themselves; a number of activities did not fit into one category and varied across networks. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that facilitation is a dynamic and fluid process, with facilitation activities, as well as their timing and intensity, occurring in response to specific organizational contexts. Understanding this process can help those planning and applying implementation facilitation to make conscious choices about the facilitation role and the activities that facilitators can use to operationalize this role. Additionally, this work provides the foundation from which future studies can identify potential mechanisms of action through which facilitation activities enhance implementation uptake.

Enhancing Implementation of Measurement-Based Mental Health Care in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: The complex practice of measurement-based care (MBC) for mental health conditions has proven challenging to implement. This study aimed to evaluate an intensive strategy to implement MBC in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Primary Care Mental Health Integration clinics. METHODS: Ten paired sites were randomly assigned to receive national MBC resources alone or with an intensive implementation strategy (external facilitation plus quality improvement teams) between May 2018 and June 2020. The intervention occurred over 12-18 months; two site pairs completed participation before the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, the authors conducted qualitative interviews and used administrative data to evaluate the implementation, adoption, reach, and effectiveness of MBC. RESULTS: All sites improved during the study, suggesting the effectiveness of the VA's national MBC initiative. Sites with facilitation improved more than comparison sites in implementation, adoption, and reach of MBC. The effectiveness of MBC (i.e., clinician responsiveness to high patient-reported outcome measure [PROM] scores) was demonstrated at all sites both before and after facilitation. After the COVID-19 pandemic began, facilitation sites maintained or improved on their implementation gains, whereas comparison sites uniformly reported decreased emphasis on MBC. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation facilitation resulted in greater gains in outcomes of interest and helped sites retain focus on MBC implementation. Regardless of study condition, clinicians were responsive to elevated PROM scores, but MBC had a larger impact on care at facilitation sites because of increased uptake. Multiple technological and contextual challenges remain, but MBC holds promise for improving routine mental health care.

Development of a qualitative data analysis codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework.

BACKGROUND: The Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and its predecessor, PARIHS, have been widely utilized in implementation studies. Although i-PARIHS developers have focused on creating tools to guide facilitators in its application in practice, tools are also needed for evaluation and research. Codebooks with clear and meaningful code labels and definitions are an important component of qualitative data analysis and have been developed for other widely used frameworks. There is no such codebook for i-PARIHS. Additionally, sub-constructs for the Innovation, Recipients, and Context constructs lack definitions, and there is no sub-classification of facilitation activities for the Facilitation construct. The lack of a standardized codebook hinders our ability to synthesize research findings across studies, explore and test the range of activities that are utilized in facilitation efforts, and potentially validate and further refine i-PARIHS. This paper describes a rigorous process of developing a detailed qualitative codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework. METHODS: A workgroup of qualitative researchers conducted a rigorous four-phase process to develop a codebook informed by i-PARIHS. In phase 1, workgroup members reviewed and discussed literature, consulted an organizational scientist, and drafted and refined subcodes and definitions for i-PARIHS constructs. In phase 2, they obtained feedback from an expert panel and further refined subcodes and definitions. In phase 3, they obtained feedback from i-PARIHS developers/experts and incorporated it into the codebook. Finally, two studies piloted the application of the codebook which informed the final version. RESULTS: The resulting i-PARIHS-informed codebook includes definitions for the four main constructs of the framework: Innovation, Recipients, Context, and Facilitation; subcodes and definitions for characteristics of each of these constructs; and instructions for the suggested application of individual codes and use of the codebook generally. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized codes and definitions in the codebook can facilitate data exploration, pattern identification, and insight development informed by the i-PARIHS framework. Qualitative analysts can also use them to explore interactions between i-PARIHS constructs, maximize the potential for comparing findings across studies, and support the refinement of the i-PARIHS framework using empirical findings from multiple studies.

Time-motion analysis of external facilitation for implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in general mental health clinics: Use of an interval-based data collection approach.

Background: Facilitation is an effective strategy to implement evidence-based practices, often involving external facilitators (EFs) bringing content expertise to implementation sites. Estimating time spent on multifaceted EF activities is complex. Furthermore, collecting continuous time-motion data for facilitation tasks is challenging. However, organizations need this information to allocate implementation resources to sites. Thus, our objectives were to conduct a time-motion analysis of external facilitation, and compare continuous versus noncontinuous approaches to collecting time-motion data. Methods: We analyzed EF time-motion data from six VA mental health clinics implementing the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM). We documented EF activities during pre-implementation (4-6 weeks) and implementation (12 months) phases. We collected continuous data during the pre-implementation phase, followed by data collection over a 2-week period (henceforth, "a two-week interval") at each of three time points (beginning/middle/end) during the implementation phase. As a validity check, we assessed how closely interval data represented continuous data collected throughout implementation for two of the sites. Results: EFs spent 21.8 ± 4.5 h/site during pre-implementation off-site, then 27.5 ± 4.6 h/site site-visiting to initiate implementation. Based on the 2-week interval data, EFs spent 2.5 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.6 h/week toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end, respectively. Prevalent activities were preparation/planning, process monitoring, program adaptation, problem identification, and problem-solving. Across all activities, 73.6% of EF time involved email, phone, or video communication. For the two continuous data sites, computed weekly time averages toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end differed from the interval data's averages by 1.0, 0.1, and 0.2 h, respectively. Activities inconsistently captured in the interval data included irregular assessment, stakeholder engagement, and network development. Conclusions: Time-motion analysis of CCM implementation showed initial higher-intensity EF involvement that tapered. The 2-week interval data collection approach, if accounting for its potential underestimation of irregular activities, may be promising/efficient for implementation studies collecting time-motion data.

From novice to expert: methods for transferring implementation facilitation skills to improve healthcare delivery.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial evidence that facilitation can address the challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations. However, facilitators need a wide variety of complex skills; lack of these can have a negative effect on implementation outcomes. Literature suggests that novice and less experienced facilitators need ongoing support from experts to develop these skills. Yet, no studies have investigated the transfer process. During a test of a facilitation strategy applied at 8 VA primary care clinics, we explored the techniques and processes an expert external facilitator utilized to transfer her skills to two initially novice internal facilitators who became experts. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted monthly debriefings with three facilitators over a 30-month period and documented these in detailed notes. Debriefings with the expert facilitator focused on how she trained and mentored facilitation trainees. We also conducted, recorded, and transcribed two semi-structured qualitative interviews with each facilitator and queried them about training content and process. We used a mix of inductive and deductive approaches to analyze data; our analysis was informed by a review of mentoring, coaching, and cognitive apprenticeship literature. We also used a case comparison approach to explore how the expert tailored her efforts. RESULTS: The expert utilized 21 techniques to transfer implementation facilitation skills. Techniques included both active (providing information, modeling, and coaching) and participatory ones. She also used techniques to support learning, i.e., cognitive supports (making thinking visible, using heuristics, sharing experiences), psychosocial supports, strategies to promote self-learning, and structural supports. Additionally, she transferred responsibility for facilitation through a dynamic process of interaction with trainees and site stakeholders. Finally, the expert varied the level of focus on particular skills to tailor her efforts to trainee and local context. CONCLUSIONS: This study viewed the journey from novice to expert facilitator through the lens of the expert who transferred facilitation skills to support implementation of an evidence-based program. It identified techniques and processes that may foster transfer of these skills and build organizational capacity for future implementation efforts. As the first study to document the implementation facilitation skills transfer process, findings have research and practical implications.

From novice to expert: a qualitative study of implementation facilitation skills.

BACKGROUND: It is widely reported that facilitation can aid implementation of evidence-based practices. Although scholars agree that facilitators need a diverse range of skills, only a few retrospective studies have identified some of these. During the test of a facilitation strategy within the context of a VA initiative to implement evidence-based care delivery models, we documented the skills an expert external facilitator transferred to two initially novice internal regional facilitators. Ours is the first study to explore facilitation skills as they are being applied and transferred. METHODS: Facilitators applied the strategy at eight primary care clinics that lacked implementation capacity in two VA networks. We conducted monthly debriefing interviews over a 30-month period and documented these in detailed notes. External facilitator interviews focused specifically on training and mentoring internal facilitators and the skills that she transferred. We also conducted, recorded, and transcribed two qualitative interviews with each facilitator and queried them about training content and process. We conducted a content analysis of the data, using deductive and inductive methods, to identify skills the external facilitator helped internal facilitators learn. We also explored the complexity of facilitation skills and grouped them into overarching skillsets. RESULTS: The external facilitator helped internal facilitators learn 22 complex skills; with few exceptions, these skills were not unique but overlapped with one another. We clustered 21 of these into 5 groups of overarching skillsets: (1) building relationships and creating a supportive environment, (2) changing the system of care and the structure and processes that support it, (3) transferring knowledge and skills and creating infrastructure support for ongoing learning, (4) planning and leading change efforts, and (5) assessing people, processes, and outcomes and creating infrastructure for program monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This study documented a broad range of implementation facilitation skills that are complex and overlapping. Findings suggest that studies and initiatives planning or applying facilitation as an implementation strategy should ensure that facilitators have or have the opportunity to learn the skills they need. Because facilitation skills are complex, the use of didactic methods alone may not be sufficient for transferring skills; future work should explore other methods and techniques.

External facilitators' perceptions of internal facilitation skills during implementation of collaborative care for mental health teams: a qualitative analysis informed by the i-PARIHS framework.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is a key strategy that may contribute to successful implementation of healthcare innovations. In blended facilitation, external facilitators (EFs) guide and support internal facilitators (IFs) in directing implementation processes. Developers of the i-PARIHS framework propose that successful facilitation requires project management, team/process, and influencing/negotiating skills. It is unclear what IF skills are most important in real-world settings, which could inform recruitment and training efforts. As prior qualitative studies of IF skills have only interviewed IFs, the perspectives of their EF partners are needed. Furthermore, little is known regarding the distribution of implementation tasks between IFs and EFs, which could impact sustainability once external support is removed. In the context of an implementation trial, we therefore: 1) evaluated IFs' use of i-PARIHS facilitation skills, from EFs' perspectives; 2) identified attributes of IFs not encompassed within the i-PARIHS skills; and 3) investigated the relative contributions of IFs and EFs during facilitation. METHODS: Analyses were conducted within a hybrid type II trial utilizing blended facilitation to implement the collaborative chronic care model within mental health teams of nine VA medical centers. Each site committed one team and an IF to weekly process design meetings and additional implementation activities over 12 months. Three EFs worked with three sites each. Following study completion, the EFs completed semi-structured qualitative interviews reflecting on the facilitation process, informed by the i-PARIHS facilitation skill areas. Interviews were analyzed via directed content analysis. RESULTS: EFs emphasized the importance of IFs having strong project management, team/process, and influencing/negotiating skills. Prior experience in these areas and a mental health background were also benefits. Personal characteristics (e.g., flexible, assertive) were described as critical, particularly when faced with conflict. EFs discussed the importance of clear delineation of EF/IF roles, and the need to shift facilitation responsibilities to IFs. CONCLUSIONS: Key IF skills, according to EFs, are aligned with i-PARIHS recommendations, but IFs' personal characteristics were also emphasized as important factors. Findings highlight traits to consider when selecting IFs and potential training areas (e.g., conflict management). EFs and IFs must determine an appropriate distribution of facilitation tasks to ensure long-term sustainability of practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, September 7, 2015, #NCT02543840.

Steps for implementing measurement-based care: Implementation planning guide development and use in quality improvement.

Although the benefits of measurement-based care (MBC) are widely noted, MBC remains underutilized in mental health services. In 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration began the MBC in Mental Health Initiative to implement MBC as a standard of care across VHA mental health services. Subsequently, in January 2018 The Joint Commission (TJC) revised their behavioral health care standards to require implementation of MBC. Based on key informant interviews with early adopters across VHA, we developed an MBC Implementation Planning Guide to support implementation of MBC in diverse mental health settings. In this article, we present the MBC Implementation Planning Guide, describe how it was developed, and suggest a process for its use by implementation teams within an overall quality improvement framework to support implementation of MBC consistent with local context and TJC requirements. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparing variations in implementation processes and influences across multiple sites: What works, for whom, and how?

Traditional analyses and interpretation of controlled trials rely on measures of central tendency (e.g., mean findings for treatment versus control) to detect treatment effects. These trial designs therefore emphasize homogeneity of results, with variations within the experimental or control groups treated as error to be controlled for or ignored. For implementation trials, however, heterogeneity of results is an expected result to be explored rather than an imperfection to be minimized. Thus, many implementation trials seek to understand not only "Does it work?" but also "What works, for whom, and how?" Hence, mixed quantitative-qualitative methods that can capitalize on heterogeneity are needed to (i) comprehensively identify factors that influence the implementation process and (ii) understand their impact on implementation outcomes. This paper outlines the matrixed multiple case study approach, which allows for understanding how these processes and influences similarly or differently interact with outcomes across multiple implementation sites. We provide an example of this approach using data from a multi-site trial that tested the implementation of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model at nine US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers.

Time and Organizational Cost for Facilitating Implementation of Primary Care Mental Health Integration.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

Enhancing implementation of measurement-based mental health care in primary care: a mixed-methods randomized effectiveness evaluation of implementation facilitation.

BACKGROUND: Mental health care lags behind other forms of medical care in its reliance on subjective clinician assessment. Although routine use of standardized patient-reported outcome measures, measurement-based care (MBC), can improve patient outcomes and engagement, clinician efficiency, and, collaboration across care team members, full implementation of this complex practice change can be challenging. This study seeks to understand whether and how an intensive facilitation strategy can be effective in supporting the implementation of MBC. Implementation researchers partnering with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) leaders are conducting the study within the context of a national initiative to support MBC implementation throughout VA mental health services. This study will focus specifically on VA Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) programs. METHODS: A mixed-methods, multiple case study design will include 12 PCMHI sites recruited from the 23 PCMHI programs that volunteered to participate in the VA national initiative. Guided by a study partnership panel, sites are clustered into similar groups using administrative metrics. Site pairs are recruited from within these groups. Within pairs, sites are randomized to the implementation facilitation strategy (external facilitation plus QI team) or standard VA national support. The implementation strategy provides an external facilitator and MBC experts who work with intervention sites to form a QI team, develop an implementation plan, and, identify and overcome barriers to implementation. The RE-AIM framework guides the evaluation of the implementation facilitation strategy which will utilize data from administrative, medical record, and primary qualitative and quantitative sources. Guided by the iPARIHS framework and using a mixed methods approach, we will also examine factors associated with implementation success. Finally, we will explore whether implementation of MBC increases primary care team communication and function related to the care of mental health conditions. DISCUSSION: MBC has significant potential to improve mental health care but it represents a major change in practice. Understanding factors that can support MBC implementation is essential to attaining its potential benefits and spreading these benefits across the health care system.

Using implementation facilitation to foster clinical practice quality and adherence to evidence in challenged settings: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated a facilitation strategy to help clinical sites likely to experience challenges implement evidence-based Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) care models within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative. This article describes our assessment of whether implementation facilitation (IF) can foster development of high quality PC-MHI programs that adhere to evidence, are sustainable and likely to improve clinical practices and outcomes. METHODS: Utilizing a matched pair design, we conducted a qualitative descriptive evaluation of the IF strategy in sixteen VA primary care clinics. To assess program quality and adherence to evidence, we conducted one-hour structured telephone interviews, at two time points, with clinicians and leaders who knew the most about the clinics' programs. We then created structured summaries of the interviews that VA national PC-MHI experts utilized to rate the programs on four dimensions (overall quality, adherence to evidence, sustainability and level of improvement). RESULTS: At first assessment, seven of eight IF sites and four of eight comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Our qualitative assessment suggested that experts rated IF sites' programs higher than comparison sites' programs with one exception. At final assessment, all eight IF but only five comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Again, experts rated IF sites' programs higher than their matched comparison sites with one exception. Over time, all ratings improved in five of seven IF sites and two of three comparison sites. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing complex evidence-based programs, particularly in settings that lack infrastructure, resources and support for such efforts, is challenging. Findings suggest that a blend of external expert and internal regional facilitation strategies that implementation scientists have developed and tested can improve PC-MHI program uptake, quality and adherence to evidence in primary care clinics with these challenges. However, not all sites showed these improvements. To be successful, facilitators likely need at least a moderate level of leaders' support, including provision of basic resources. Additionally, we found that IF and strength of leadership structure may have a synergistic effect on ability to implement higher quality and evidence-based programs.

Outcomes of a partnered facilitation strategy to implement primary care-mental health.

BACKGROUND: Implementing new programs and practices is challenging, even when they are mandated. Implementation Facilitation (IF) strategies that focus on partnering with sites show promise for addressing these challenges. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of an external/internal IF strategy within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandate of Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI). DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental, Hybrid Type III study. Generalized estimating equations assessed differences across sites. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and providers at seven VA primary care clinics receiving the IF intervention and national support and seven matched comparison clinics receiving national support only participated in the study. INTERVENTION: We used a highly partnered IF strategy incorporating evidence-based implementation interventions. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the IF strategy using VA administrative data and RE-AIM framework measures for two 6-month periods. KEY RESULTS: Evaluation of RE-AIM measures from the first 6-month period indicated that PC patients at IF clinics had nine times the odds (OR=8.93, p<0.001) of also being seen in PC-MHI (Reach) compared to patients at non-IF clinics. PC providers at IF clinics had seven times the odds (OR=7.12, p=0.029) of referring patients to PC-MHI (Adoption) than providers at non-IF clinics, and a greater proportion of providers' patients at IF clinics were referred to PC-MHI (Adoption) compared to non-IF clinics (ß=0.027, p<0.001). Compared to PC patients at non-IF sites, patients at IF clinics did not have lower odds (OR=1.34, p=0.232) of being referred for first-time mental health specialty clinic visits (Effectiveness), or higher odds (OR=1.90, p=0.350) of receiving same-day access (Implementation). Assessment of program sustainability (Maintenance) was conducted by repeating this analysis for a second 6-month time period. Maintenance analyses results were similar to the earlier period. CONCLUSION: The addition of a highly partnered IF strategy to national level support resulted in greater Reach and Adoption of the mandated PC-MHI initiative, thereby increasing patient access to VA mental health care.

Research & services partnerships: lessons learned through a national partnership between clinical leaders and researchers.

This column describes lessons learned by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) researchers and clinical operations managers while they were engaged in a unique partnership. In this partnership, researchers turned generalizable lessons from implementation research into actionable guidance for use by clinical managers in implementing health care system change. The lessons learned are reflections about the necessary foundations for partnering, the importance of relationships, the need for regular communication, and the need to recognize and adapt to partners' timelines and time constraints.

Research and services partnerships: Responding to needs of clinical operations partners: transferring implementation facilitation knowledge and skills.

This column describes a facilitation strategy that incorporates evidence-based implementation knowledge and practice-based wisdom. The authors also describe a partnership between research and clinical operations leaders in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to bridge the gap between implementation knowledge and its use. The initial product of the partnership, the Implementation Facilitation Training Manual: Using External and Internal Facilitation to Improve Care in the Veterans Health Administration, is a resource that can be used by others to guide implementation efforts.

Roles of managers, frontline staff and local champions, in implementing quality improvement: stakeholders' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Translating promising research findings into routine clinical care has proven difficult to achieve; even highly efficacious programmes remain unadopted. Critical to changing care is an understanding of the context within which the improvement effort occurs, including the climate or culture. Health care systems are multicultural due to the wide variety of professionals, subgroups, divisions and teams within them. Yet, little work describes and compares different stakeholders' views on their and others' roles in promoting successful quality improvement implementation. OBJECTIVE: To identify manager and frontline staff perspectives about which organizational stakeholders should play a role in implementation efforts as well as what implementation roles these stakeholders should perform. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews of a purposive sample of stakeholders at the clinic, medical centre and regional network levels. Participants included stakeholders across five clinics (n = 49), their four affiliated medical centres (n = 12) and three regional networks (n = 7). Working in coding teams, we conducted a content analysis utilizing Atlas.ti Version 5. RESULTS: According to informants, individuals at each organizational level have unique and critical roles to play in implementing and sustaining quality improvement efforts. Informants advocated for participation of a wide range of organizational members, described distinct roles for each group, and articulated the need for and defined the characteristics of frontline programme champions. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of multiple types of stakeholders is likely to be costly for health care organizations. Yet, if such organizations are to achieve the highest quality care, it is also likely that such involvement is essential.

Creating a quality-improvement dialogue: utilizing knowledge from frontline staff, managers, and experts to foster health care quality improvement.

There is a growing consensus that a hybrid of two common approaches to quality improvement (QI), local participatory QI and expert QI, might be the best method for achieving quality care. Achieving such a hybrid requires that content experts establish an ongoing dialogue with both frontline staff members and managers. In this study we examined frontline staff members' and managers' preferences regarding how to conduct such a dialogue, and we provide practical suggestions for implementation. The two groups shared a number of preferences (e.g., verbal face-to-face exchanges, discussions focused on quality of care). There were also some differences. For example, although managers were interested in discussions of business aspects (e.g., costs), frontline staff members were concerned with workload issues. Finally, although informants acknowledged that engaging in a QI dialogue was time consuming, they also believed it was essential if health care organizations are to improve the quality of care they provide.