Interorganizational Context When Implementing Multisector Partnered Programs: A Qualitative Analysis of Veteran Directed Care.

As the number of Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and at risk for needing Long Term Services and Supports increases, VHA is shifting from institutional to Home and Community Based Services, such as the Veteran-Directed Care (VDC) program. VDC is a multi-sector program implemented as a collaboration between individual VHA medical centers (VAMCs) and Aging and Disability Network Agencies (ADNAs), entities that sit outside the VHA. Factors that affect establishment of effective multi-sector programs such as VDC are poorly understood, limiting ability to effectively deliver and scale programs. We conducted a qualitative study to describe factors affecting the interorganizational implementation context of VDC. Using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we interviewed VDC coordinators from seven different VAMC-ADNA partnerships that initiated the VDC program between 2017 and 2018. We identified eight CFIR determinants which manifested similarly for the VAMCs and ADNAs: evidence strength and quality, relative advantage, adaptability, tension for change, access to knowledge and information, self-efficacy; engaging, and champions. We identified three CFIR determinants that varied dramatically across VAMCs and ADNAs: available resources, implementation climate, and relative priority. Our results suggest that interorganizational context plays a critical and dynamic role within multi-sector collaborations.

Strategies for Successful Survivorship Care Plan Implementation: Results From a Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Care for US cancer survivors is often fragmented, contributing to poor health outcomes. Care and outcomes may improve when survivors and follow-up care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs), written documents containing information regarding cancer diagnosis, treatment, surveillance plans, and health promotion. However, implementing SCPs is challenging. As such, we sought to identify strategies for successfully implementing SCPs. METHODS: We measured SCP implementation using performance data from cancer programs participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, an oncologist-led quality assessment and improvement program. We used semistructured interviews with cancer program employees (eg, physicians) to identify strategies for successfully implementing SCPs by comparing approaches in cancer programs that, according to Quality Oncology Practice Initiative performance indicators, developed and delivered SCPs to a relatively small proportion of eligible survivors and their follow-up care providers (ie, low performers; n = 6 participants in five programs) with approaches among programs with better performance (ie, moderate performers; n = 15 participants in nine programs). RESULTS: Ten of 14 cancer programs developed SCPs for ≥ 50% of eligible survivors; two of 14 delivered SCPs to any survivors; and eight of 14 delivered SCPs to ≥ 25% of follow-up care providers. We found that moderate performers proactively addressed SCP requirements, leveraged requirements to improve survivorship care, set internal targets, automated implementation, had active leaders and champions, and tasked appropriate employees with SCP implementation. CONCLUSION: SCP implementation remains challenging. We identified strategies for successfully implementing SCPs. Future research should examine how cancer programs have achieved these strategies; findings could contribute to an understanding of the changes needed to implement comprehensive survivorship care.

The influence of formal and informal policies and practices on health care innovation implementation: A mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: The implementation science literature has contributed important insights regarding the influence of formal policies and practices on health care innovation implementation, whereas informal implementation policies and practices have garnered little attention. The broader literature suggests that informal implementation policies and practices could also influence innovation use. PURPOSE: We used the Organizational Theory of Innovation Implementation to further understand the role of formal and informal implementation policies and practices as determinants of implementation effectiveness. We examined their role within the context of initiatives to increase palliative care consultation in inpatient oncology. METHODS: We used a case study design in two organizational settings within one academic medical center: medical and gynecologic oncology. We completed semistructured interviews with medical (n = 12) and gynecologic (n = 10) oncology clinicians using questions based on organizational theory. Quantitative data assessed implementation effectiveness, defined as aggregated palliative care consult rates within oncology services from 2010 to 2016. Four palliative care clinicians were interviewed to gain additional implementation context insights. RESULTS: Medical oncology employed multiple formal policies and practices including training and clinician prompting to support palliative care consultation and a top-down approach, yet most clinicians were unaware of the policies and practices, contributing to a weak implementation climate. In contrast, gynecologic oncology employed one formal policy (written guideline of criteria for initiating a consult) but also relied on informal policies and practices, such as spontaneous feedback and communication; they adopted a bottom-up approach, contributing to broader clinician awareness and strong implementation climate. Both services exhibited variable, increasing consult rates over time. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Informal policies and practices may compensate or substitute for formal policies and practices under certain conditions (e.g., smaller health care organizations). Further research is needed to investigate the role of formal and informal policies and practices in shaping a strong and sustainable implementation climate and subsequent effective innovation implementation.

Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Implementation outcome measures are essential for monitoring and evaluating the success of implementation efforts. Yet, currently available measures lack conceptual clarity and have largely unknown reliability and validity. This study developed and psychometrically assessed three new measures: the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). METHODS: Thirty-six implementation scientists and 27 mental health professionals assigned 31 items to the constructs and rated their confidence in their assignments. The Wilcoxon one-sample signed rank test was used to assess substantive and discriminant content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) and Cronbach alphas were used to assess the validity of the conceptual model. Three hundred twenty-six mental health counselors read one of six randomly assigned vignettes depicting a therapist contemplating adopting an evidence-based practice (EBP). Participants used 15 items to rate the therapist's perceptions of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of adopting the EBP. CFA and Cronbach alphas were used to refine the scales, assess structural validity, and assess reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess known-groups validity. Finally, half of the counselors were randomly assigned to receive the same vignette and the other half the opposite vignette; and all were asked to re-rate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess test-retest reliability and linear regression to assess sensitivity to change. RESULTS: All but five items exhibited substantive and discriminant content validity. A trimmed CFA with five items per construct exhibited acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.79 to 0.94). The alphas for 5-item scales were between 0.87 and 0.89. Scale refinement based on measure-specific CFAs and Cronbach alphas using vignette data produced 4-item scales (α's from 0.85 to 0.91). A three-factor CFA exhibited acceptable fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.75 to 0.89), indicating structural validity. ANOVA showed significant main effects, indicating known-groups validity. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.88. Regression analysis indicated each measure was sensitive to change in both directions. CONCLUSIONS: The AIM, IAM, and FIM demonstrate promising psychometric properties. Predictive validity assessment is planned.

Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research.

BACKGROUND: Even under optimal internal organizational conditions, implementation can be undermined by changes in organizations' external environments, such as fluctuations in funding, adjustments in contracting practices, new technology, new legislation, changes in clinical practice guidelines and recommendations, or other environmental shifts. Internal organizational conditions are increasingly reflected in implementation frameworks, but nuanced explanations of how organizations' external environments influence implementation success are lacking in implementation research. Organizational theories offer implementation researchers a host of existing, highly relevant, and heretofore largely untapped explanations of the complex interaction between organizations and their environment. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of organizational theories for implementation research. DISCUSSION: We applied four well-known organizational theories (institutional theory, transaction cost economics, contingency theories, and resource dependency theory) to published descriptions of efforts to implement SafeCare, an evidence-based practice for preventing child abuse and neglect. Transaction cost economics theory explained how frequent, uncertain processes for contracting for SafeCare may have generated inefficiencies and thus compromised implementation among private child welfare organizations. Institutional theory explained how child welfare systems may have been motivated to implement SafeCare because doing so aligned with expectations of key stakeholders within child welfare systems' professional communities. Contingency theories explained how efforts such as interagency collaborative teams promoted SafeCare implementation by facilitating adaptation to child welfare agencies' internal and external contexts. Resource dependency theory (RDT) explained how interagency relationships, supported by contracts, memoranda of understanding, and negotiations, facilitated SafeCare implementation by balancing autonomy and dependence on funding agencies and SafeCare developers. In addition to the retrospective application of organizational theories demonstrated above, we advocate for the proactive use of organizational theories to design implementation research. For example, implementation strategies should be selected to minimize transaction costs, promote and maintain congruence between organizations' dynamic internal and external contexts over time, and simultaneously attend to organizations' financial needs while preserving their autonomy. We describe implications of applying organizational theory in implementation research for implementation strategies, the evaluation of implementation efforts, measurement, research design, theory, and practice. We also offer guidance to implementation researchers for applying organizational theory.