A Roadmap to Inform the Implementation of Evidence-Based Collaborative Care Interventions in Communities: Insights From the Michigan Mental Health Integration Partnership.

Background: Despite increasing calls for further spread of evidence-based collaborative care interventions (EBIs) in community-based settings, practitioner-driven efforts are often stymied by a lack of experience in addressing barriers to community-based implementation, especially for those not familiar with implementation science. The Michigan Mental Health Integration Partnership (MIP) is a statewide initiative that funds projects that support implementation and uptake of EBIs in community-based settings. MIP also provides an in situ implementation laboratory for understanding barriers to the uptake of EBIs across a variety of settings. We report findings from a statewide qualitative study of practitioners involved in MIP projects to garner their perspectives of best practices in the implementation of EBIs. Methods: Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews of practitioners and researchers from six MIP Projects were conducted with individuals implementing various MIP EBI projects across Michigan, including stakeholders from project teams, implementation sites, and the State of Michigan, to identify common barriers, challenges, and implementation strategies deployed by the project teams, with the purpose of informing a set of implementation steps and milestones. Results: Stakeholders identified a number of barriers to and strategies for success, including the need for tailoring program deployment and implementation to specific site needs, development of web-based tools for facilitating program implementation, and the importance of upper-level administration buy-in. Findings informed our resultant community-based Implementation Roadmap, which identifies critical steps across three implementation phases-pre-implementation, implementation, and sustainability-for implementation practitioners to use in their EBI implementation efforts. Conclusion: Implementation practitioners interested in community-based EBI implementation often lack access to operationalized implementation "steps" or "best practices" that can facilitate successful uptake and evaluation. Our community-informed MIP Implementation Roadmap, offering generalized steps for reaching successful implementation, uses experiences from a diverse set of MIP teams to guide practitioners through the practices necessary for scaling up EBIs in community-based settings over pre-implementation, implementation and sustainability phases.

Comparative effectiveness of external vs blended facilitation on collaborative care model implementation in slow-implementer community practices.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of external facilitation (EF) vs external + internal facilitation (EF/IF), on uptake of a collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in community practices that were slower to implement under low-level implementation support. STUDY SETTING: Primary data were collected from 43 community practices in Michigan and Colorado at baseline and for 12 months following randomization. STUDY DESIGN: Sites that failed to meet a pre-established implementation benchmark after six months of low-level implementation support were randomized to add either EF or EF/IF support for up to 12 months. Key outcomes were change in number of patients receiving the CCM and number of patients receiving a clinically significant dose of the CCM. Moderators' analyses further examined whether comparative effectiveness was dependent on prerandomization adoption, number of providers trained or practice size. Facilitation log data were used for exploratory follow-up analyses. DATA COLLECTION: Sites reported monthly on number of patients that had received the CCM. Facilitation logs were completed by study EF and site IFs and shared with the study team. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: N = 21 sites were randomized to EF and 22 to EF/IF. Overall, EF/IF practices saw more uptake than EF sites after 12 months (ΔEF/IF-EF  = 4.4 patients, 95% CI = 1.87-6.87). Moderators' analyses, however, revealed that it was only sites with no prerandomization uptake of the CCM (nonadopter sites) that saw significantly more benefit from EF/IF (ΔEF/IF-EF  = 9.2 patients, 95% CI: 5.72, 12.63). For sites with prerandomization uptake (adopter sites), EF/IF offered no additional benefit (ΔEF/IF-EF  = -0.9; 95% CI: -4.40, 2.60). Number of providers trained and practice size were not significant moderators. CONCLUSIONS: Although stepping up to the more intensive EF/IF did outperform EF overall, its benefit was limited to sites that failed to deliver any CCM under the low-level strategy. Once one or more providers were delivering the CCM, additional on-site personnel did not appear to add value to the implementation effort.