Effect of a National VHA Medical Scribe Pilot on Provider Productivity, Wait Times, and Patient Satisfaction in Cardiology and Orthopedics.

BACKGROUND: Section 507 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 mandated a 2-year pilot study of medical scribes in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), with 12 VA Medical Centers randomly selected to receive scribes in their emergency departments or high wait time specialty clinics (cardiology and orthopedics). The pilot began on June 30, 2020, and ended on July 1, 2022. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of medical scribes on provider productivity, wait times, and patient satisfaction in cardiology and orthopedics, as mandated by the MISSION Act. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial, with intent-to-treat analysis using difference-in-differences regression. PATIENTS: Veterans using 18 included VA Medical Centers (12 intervention and 6 comparison sites). INTERVENTION: Randomization into MISSION 507 medical scribe pilot. MAIN MEASURES: Provider productivity, wait times, and patient satisfaction per clinic-pay period. KEY RESULTS: Randomization into the scribe pilot was associated with increases of 25.2 relative value units (RVUs) per full-time equivalent (FTE) (p < 0.001) and 8.5 visits per FTE (p = 0.002) in cardiology and increases of 17.3 RVUs per FTE (p = 0.001) and 12.5 visits per FTE (p = 0.001) in orthopedics. We found that the scribe pilot was associated with a decrease of 8.5 days in request to appointment day wait times (p < 0.001) in orthopedics, driven by a 5.7-day decrease in appointment made to appointment day wait times (p < 0.001), and observed no change in wait times in cardiology. We also observed no declines in patient satisfaction with randomization into the scribe pilot. CONCLUSIONS: Given the potential improvements in productivity and wait times with no change in patient satisfaction, our results suggest that scribes may be a useful tool to improve access to VHA care. However, participation in the pilot by sites and providers was voluntary, which could have implications for scalability and what effects could be expected if scribes were introduced to the care process without buy-in. Cost was not considered in this analysis but is an important factor for future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04154462.

VA Outreach Is an Essential Area for Improving Veterans' Health Care Accessibility.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is tasked with providing access to health care to veterans of military service. However, many eligible veterans have either not yet enrolled or underutilized VHA services. Further study of barriers to access before veterans enroll in VHA care is necessary to understand how to address this issue. The ChooseVA (née MyVA Access) initiative aims to achieve this mission to improve veterans' health care access. Although veteran outreach was not specifically addressed by the initiative, it is a critical component of improving veterans' access to health care. Findings from this multisite evaluation of ChooseVA implementation describe sites' efforts to improve VHA outreach and veterans' experiences with access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This quality improvement evaluation employed a multi-method qualitative methodology, including 127 semi-structured interviews and 81 focus groups with VHA providers and staff ("VHA staff") completed during 21 VHA medical center facility site visits between July and November 2017 and 48 telephone interviews with veterans completed between May and October 2018. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using deductive and inductive analysis to capture challenges and strategies to improve VHA health care access (VHA staff data), experiences with access to care (veteran data), barriers and facilitators to care (staff and veteran data), contextual factors, and emerging categories and themes. We developed focused themes describing perceived challenges, descriptions of VHA staff efforts to improve veteran outreach, and veterans' experiences with accessing VHA health care. RESULTS: VHA staff and veteran respondents reported a lack of veteran awareness of eligibility for VHA services. Veterans reported limited understanding of the range of services offered. This awareness gap served as a barrier to veterans' ability to successfully access VHA health care services. Veterans described this awareness gap as contributing to delayed VHA enrollment and delayed or underutilized health care benefits and services. Staff focused on community outreach and engaging veterans for VHA enrollment as part of their efforts to implement the ChooseVA access initiative. Staff and veteran respondents agreed that outreach efforts were helpful for engaging veterans and facilitating access. CONCLUSIONS: Although efforts across VHA programs informed veterans about VHA services, our results suggest that both VHA staff and veterans agreed that missed opportunities exist. Gaps include veterans' lack of awareness or understanding of VHA benefits for which they qualify for. This can result in delayed access to care which may negatively impact veterans, including those separating from the military and vulnerable populations such as veterans who experience pregnancy or homelessness.

Enhancing the e-consult: empowering efficient and collaborative care.

This editorial provides suggestions for improving the process of e-consults, which are a promising method of expanding access to specialty care.

Design and implementation of a cluster randomized trial measuring benefits of medical scribes in the VA.

BACKGROUND: Medical scribes are trained professionals who assist health care providers by administratively expediting patient encounters. Section 507 of the MISSION Act of 2018 mandated a 2-year study of medical scribes in VA Medical Centers (VAMC). This study began in 2020 in the emergency departments and specialty clinics of 12 randomly selected VAMCs across the country, in which 48 scribes are being deployed. METHODS: We are using a cluster randomized trial to assess the effects of medical scribes on productivity (visits and relative value units [RVUs]), wait times, and patient satisfaction in selected specialties within the VA that traditionally have high wait times. Scribes will be assigned to emergency departments and/or specialty clinics (cardiology, orthopedics) in VAMCs randomized into the intervention. Remaining sites that expressed interest but were not randomized to the intervention will be used as a comparison group. RESULTS: Process measures from early implementation of the trial indicate that contracting may hold an advantage over direct hiring in terms of reaching staffing targets, although onboarding contractor scribes has taken somewhat longer (from job posting to start date). CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation findings will provide insight into whether scribes can increase provider productivity and decrease wait times for high demand specialties in the VA without adversely affecting patient satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS: As a learning health care system, this trial has great potential to increase our understanding of the potential effects of scribes while also informing a real policy problem in high wait times and provider administrative burdens.

Cost savings associated with electronic specialty consultations.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic consultations, or e-consults, between primary care providers and specialists have been shown to improve access to specialty care, shorten wait times, and reduce outpatient visits. The objective of this study was to evaluate differences in health care costs between patients who received an electronic specialty consultation and patients who received a face-to-face specialty consultation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort evaluation of patients who received a specialty consultation in the Veterans Health Administration during 2016. METHODS: Patients who received an e-consult were matched 1:1 to patients who received a face-to-face consultation using propensity scores. Total, outpatient, and inpatient health care costs over 3 and 6 months following the specialty consultation were compared using a generalized linear model with a gamma distribution and log link. RESULTS: e-Consults accounted for 1.8% (urology) to 9.6% (hematology) of specialty consultations, on average. Across 11 specialties, patients receiving an e-consult had significantly lower health care costs compared with patients receiving a face-to-face consultation, ranging from 3.6% (cardiology) to 30.7% (hematology) lower. This was largely driven by differences in outpatient costs. Patients receiving an e-consult had significantly lower outpatient costs for all specialties except cardiology, ranging from 6.9% (endocrinology) to 31.2% (hematology) lower. Three-month inpatient costs among those who received an e-consult were significantly lower only in cardiology (5.2%), nephrology (9.3%), pulmonary (13.0%), and gastroenterology (14.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic specialty consultations are a potential mechanism to reduce health care costs and promote the efficient use of health care resources.

Coordinating Care Across VA Providers and Settings: Policy and Research Recommendations from VA's State of the Art Conference.

Delivering well-coordinated care is essential for optimizing clinical outcomes, enhancing patient care experiences, minimizing costs, and increasing provider satisfaction. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has built a strong foundation for internally coordinating care. However, VA faces mounting internal care coordination challenges due to growth in the number of Veterans using VA care, high complexity in Veterans' care needs, the breadth and depth of VA services, and increasing use of virtual care. VA's Health Services Research and Development service with the Office of Research and Development held a conference assessing the state-of-the-art (SOTA) on care coordination. One workgroup within the SOTA focused on coordination between VA providers for high-need Veterans, including (1) Veterans with multiple chronic conditions; (2) Veterans with high-intensity, focused, specialty care needs; (3) Veterans experiencing care transitions; (4) Veterans with severe mental illness; (5) and Veterans with homelessness and/or substance use disorders. We report on this workgroup's recommendations for policy and organizational initiatives and identify questions for further research. Recommendations from a separate workgroup on coordinating VA and non-VA care are contained in a companion paper. Leaders from research, clinical services, and VA policy will need to partner closely as they develop, implement, assess, and spread effective practices if VA is to fully realize its potential for delivering highly coordinated care to every Veteran.

An operations-partnered evaluation of care redesign for high-risk patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): Study protocol for the PACT Intensive Management (PIM) randomized quality improvement evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical homes have made great strides providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic conditions, but may not provide sufficient support for patients at highest risk for acute care use. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated a five-site demonstration project to evaluate the effectiveness of augmenting the VA's Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) medical home with PACT Intensive Management (PIM) teams for Veterans at highest risk for hospitalization. METHODS/DESIGN: Researchers partnered with VHA leadership to design a mixed-methods prospective multi-site evaluation that met leadership's desire for a rigorous evaluation conducted as quality improvement rather than research. We conducted a randomized QI evaluation and assigned high-risk patients to participate in PIM and compared them with high-risk Veterans receiving usual care through PACT. The summative evaluation examines whether PIM: 1) decreases VHA emergency department and hospital use; 2) increases satisfaction with VHA care; 3) decreases provider burnout; and 4) generates positive returns on investment. The formative evaluation aims to support improved care for high-risk patients at demonstration sites and to inform future initiatives for high-risk patients. The evaluation was reviewed by representatives from the VHA Office of Research and Development and the Office of Research Oversight and met criteria for quality improvement. DISCUSSION: VHA aims to function as a learning organization by rapidly implementing and rigorously testing QI innovations prior to final program or policy development. We observed challenges and opportunities in designing an evaluation consistent with QI standards and operations priorities, while also maintaining scientific rigor. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on April 3, 2017: NCT03100526. Protocol v1, FY14-17.

A realist review of shared medical appointments: How, for whom, and under what circumstances do they work?

BACKGROUND: Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are doctor-patient visits in which groups of patients are seen by one or more health care providers in a concurrent session. There is a growing interest in understanding the potential benefits of SMAs in various contexts to improve clinical outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. This study builds upon the existing evidence base that suggests SMAs are indeed effective. In this study, we explored how they are effective in terms of the underlying mechanisms of action and under what circumstances. METHODS: Realist review methodology was used to synthesize the literature on SMAs, which included a broad search of 800+ published articles. 71 high quality primary research articles were retained to build a conceptual model of SMAs and 20 of those were selected for an in depth analysis using realist methodology (i.e.,middle-range theories and and context-mechanism-outcome configurations). RESULTS: Nine main mechanisms that serve to explain how SMAs work were theorized from the data immersion process and configured in a series of context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs). These are: (1) Group exposure in SMAs combats isolation, which in turn helps to remove doubts about one's ability to manage illness; (2) Patients learn about disease self-management vicariously by witnessing others' illness experiences; (3) Patients feel inspired by seeing others who are coping well; (4) Group dynamics lead patients and providers to developing more equitable relationships; (5) Providers feel increased appreciation and rapport toward colleagues leading to increased efficiency; (6) Providers learn from the patients how better to meet their patients' needs; (7) Adequate time allotment of the SMA leads patients to feel supported; (8) Patients receive professional expertise from the provider in combination with first-hand information from peers, resulting in more robust health knowledge; and (9) Patients have the opportunity to see how the physicians interact with fellow patients, which allows them to get to know the physician and better determine their level of trust. CONCLUSIONS: Nine overarching mechanisms were configured in CMO configurations and discussed as a set of complementary middle-range programme theories to explain how SMAs work. It is anticipated that this innovative work in theorizing SMAs using realist review methodology will provide policy makers and SMA program planners adequate conceptual grounding to design contextually sensitive SMA programs in a wide variety of settings and advance an SMA research agenda for varied contexts.

Telemedicine Specialty Support Promotes Hepatitis C Treatment by Primary Care Providers in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest US provider of hepatitis C treatment. Although antiviral regimens are becoming simpler, hepatitis C antivirals are not typically prescribed by primary care providers. The Veterans Affairs Extension for Community Health Outcomes (VA-ECHO) program was launched to promote primary care-based hepatitis C treatment using videoconferencing-based specialist support. We aimed to assess whether primary care provider participation in VA-ECHO was associated with hepatitis C treatment and sustained virologic response. METHODS: We identified 4173 primary care providers (n = 152 sites) responsible for 38,753 patients with chronic hepatitis C infection. A total of 6431 patients had a primary care provider participating in VA-ECHO; 32,322 patients had an unexposed primary care provider. Exposure was modeled as a patient-level time-varying covariate. Patients became exposed after primary care provider participation in ≥1 VA-ECHO session. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards frailty modeling assessed the association between VA-ECHO exposure and hepatitis C treatment. Among treated patients, modified Poisson regression assessed the relationship between exposure and sustained virologic response. RESULTS: After adjustment, exposed patients received significantly higher rates of antiviral treatment compared with unexposed patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.32; P <.01). The rate of primary care provider-initiated antiviral medication was 21.4% among treated patients reviewed on VA-ECHO teleconferences compared with 2.5% among unexposed patients (P <.01). No difference in adjusted rates of sustained virologic response was observed for patients with exposed primary care providers (P = .32), with similar crude rates for primary care providers versus specialists. CONCLUSIONS: National implementation of VA-ECHO was positively associated with hepatitis C treatment initiation by primary care providers, without differences in sustained virologic response.

The utilization of video-conference shared medical appointments in rural diabetes care.

AIM: To explore whether Video-Shared Medical Appointments (video-SMA), where group education and medication titration were provided remotely through video-conferencing technology would improve diabetes outcomes in remote rural settings. METHODS: We conducted a pilot where a team of a clinical pharmacist and a nurse practitioner from Honolulu VA hospital remotely delivered video-SMA in diabetes to Guam. Patients with diabetes and HbA1c ≥7% were enrolled into the study during 2013-2014. Six groups of 4-6 subjects attended 4 weekly sessions, followed by 2 bi-monthly booster video-SMA sessions for 5 months. Patients with HbA1c ≥7% that had primary care visits during the study period but not referred/recruited for video-SMA were selected as usual-care comparators. We compared changes from baseline in HbA1c, blood-pressure, and lipid levels using mixed-effect modeling between video-SMA and usual care groups. We also analyzed emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Focus groups were conducted to understand patient's perceptions. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received video-SMA and charts of 69 subjects were abstracted as usual-care. After 5 months, there was a significant decline in HbA1c in video-SMA vs. usual-care (9.1±1.9 to 8.3±1.8 vs. 8.6±1.4 to 8.7±1.6, P=0.03). No significant change in blood-pressure or lipid levels was found between the groups. Patients in the video-SMA group had significantly lower rates of ED visits (3.2% vs. 17.4%, P=0.01) than usual-care but similar hospitalization rates. Focus groups suggested patient satisfaction with video-SMA and increase in self-efficacy in diabetes self-care. CONCLUSION: Video-SMA is feasible, well-perceived and has the potential to improve diabetes outcomes in a rural setting.

Implementation of telementoring for pain management in Veterans Health Administration: Spatial analysis.

In 2011, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented a pilot telementoring program across seven healthcare networks called the Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) for pain management. A VHA healthcare network is a group of hospitals and clinics administratively linked in a geographic area. We created a series of county-level maps in one network displaying (1) the location of Veterans with chronic pain, (2) VHA sites (i.e., coordinating center, other medical centers, outpatient clinics), (3) proportion of Veterans being seen in-person at pain specialty clinics, and (4) proportion of Veterans with access to a primary care provider participating in Pain SCAN-ECHO. We calculated the geodesic distance from Veterans' homes to nearest VHA pain specialty care clinics. We used logistic regression to determine the association between distance and Pain SCAN-ECHO primary care provider participation. Mapping showed counties closer to the Pain SCAN-ECHO coordinating center had a higher rate of Veterans whose providers participated in Pain SCAN-ECHO than those further away. Regression models within networks revealed wide heterogeneity in the reach of Pain SCAN-ECHO to Veterans with low spatial access to pain care. Using geographic information systems can reveal the spatial reach of technology-based healthcare programs and inform future expansion.

Evaluation of a telementoring intervention for pain management in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: Half of all Veterans experience chronic pain yet many face geographical barriers to specialty pain care. In 2011, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) launched the Specialty Care Access Network-ECHO (SCAN-ECHO), which uses telehealth technology to provide primary care providers with case-based specialist consultation and pain management education. Our objective was to evaluate the pilot SCAN-ECHO pain management program (SCAN-ECHO-PM). DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a longitudinal observational evaluation of SCAN-ECHO-PM in seven regional VHA healthcare networks. METHODS: We identified the patient panels of primary care providers who submitted a consultation to one or more SCAN-ECHO-PM sessions. We constructed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to assess the association between provider SCAN-ECHO-PM consultation and 1) delivery of outpatient care (physical medicine, mental health, substance use disorder, and pain medicine) and 2) medication initiation (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioid analgesics). RESULTS: Primary care providers (N = 159) who presented one or more SCAN-ECHO-PM sessions had patient panels of 22,454 patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Provider consultation to SCAN-ECHO-PM was associated with utilization of physical medicine [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.14] but not mental health (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05), substance use disorder (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03) or specialty pain clinics (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.08). SCAN-ECHO-PM consultation was associated with initiation of an antidepressant (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15) or anticonvulsant medication (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.19) but not an opioid analgesic (HR 1.05, 0.99-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: SCAN-ECHO-PM was associated with increased utilization of physical medicine services and initiation of nonopioid medications among patients with CNCP. SCAN-ECHO-PM may provide a novel means of building pain management competency among primary care providers.

Shared medical appointments for patients with diabetes: glycemic reduction in high-risk patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact on glycemic control (A1c, %) in a primary care urban Veterans Affairs (VA) shared medical appointments (SMAs). DATA SOURCES: A retrospective pretest/posttest study included all patients who had attended ≥1 SMA from 4/06 to 12/10. A1cs 810 days pre- and postinitial SMA were obtained from 90-day time periods. A1c levels were averaged within patient in these 90-day intervals and data were aggregated based upon corresponding time intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Of 1290 individuals seen in SMAs, 1288 (99.8%) had ≥1 A1c levels and 1170 (90.7%) individuals had ≥1 level collected both before and after attendance. The sample was predominantly (96%) male and middle aged or older (mean [±1 SD] age of 62.6 + 9.09 years) with a mean Diabetes Severity Index 3.01 (2.34). There were significant A1c reductions (∼1%) in A1c overall (n = 1170) and for patients with ≥1 measurement in the 180-day periods preceding and following their first SMA appointment (n = 815). Linear regression analysis showed a significant (p < .001) pre-SMA positive trend (r(2) = 0.90). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Limitations notwithstanding (single site and design lacking a control group), the large number of patients demonstrates SMA clinical effectiveness in improving A1c for high-risk patients with diabetes.

Providing specialty consultant expertise to primary care: an expanding spectrum of modalities.

In most models of health care delivery, the bulk of services are provided in primary care and there is frequent request for the input of specialty consultants. A critical issue for current and future health care systems is the effective and efficient delivery of specialist expertise for clinicians and patients. Input on a patient's care from specialty consultants usually requires a face-to-face visit between the patient and the consultant. New and complementary models of knowledge sharing have emerged. We describe a framework assessment of a spectrum of knowledge-sharing methods in the context of a patient-centered medical home. This framework is based on our experience in the Veterans Health Administration and a purposive review of the literature. These newer modes of specialty consultation include electronic consultation, secure text messaging, telemedicine of various types, and population preemptive consults. In addition to describing these modes of consultation, our framework points to several important areas in which further research is needed to optimize effectiveness.

More than a score: a qualitative study of ancillary benefits of performance measurement.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has examined clinical effects of performance measurement systems. To the extent that non-clinical effects have been researched, the focus has been on negative unintended consequences. Yet, these same systems may also have ancillary benefits for patients and providers--that is, benefits that extend beyond improvements on clinical measures. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe potential ancillary benefits of performance measures as perceived by primary care staff and facility leaders in a large US healthcare system. METHODS: In-person individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 59 primary care staff and facility leaders at four Veterans Health Administration facilities. Transcribed interviews were coded and organised into thematic categories. RESULTS: Interviewed staff observed that local performance measurement implementation practices can result in increased patient knowledge and motivation. These effects on patients can lead to improved performance scores and additional ancillary benefits. Performance measurement implementation can also directly result in ancillary benefits for the patients and providers. Patients may experience greater satisfaction with care and psychosocial benefits associated with increased provider-patient communication. Ancillary benefits of performance measurement for providers include increased pride in individual or organisational performance and greater confidence that one's practice is grounded in evidence-based medicine. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive understanding of the effects of performance measurement systems needs to incorporate ancillary benefits as well as effects on clinical performance scores and negative unintended consequences. Although clinical performance has been the focus of most evaluations of performance measurement to date, both patient care and provider satisfaction may improve more rapidly if all three categories of effects are considered when designing and evaluating performance measurement systems.

Choosing targets for glycaemia, blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in elderly individuals with diabetes mellitus.

Diabetes mellitus in the 'elderly' poses unique management challenges that contribute to conflicting priorities. Individualized management requires taking into account each patient's medical history, functional ability, home care situation, life expectancy and his/her health beliefs; individuals value trade-offs (e.g. quantity versus quality of life, and side effects as well as risks versus long-term benefits) differently. Moreover, this decision making relies on imperfect evidence. Target goals for three intermediate outcomes - glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)]), blood pressure control and lipid control (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]) - help keep management on track. Of these, glycaemic control is usually the most complex. Glycaemic control alleviates symptoms of hyperglycaemia and can improve micro- and macrovascular outcomes. Tight glycaemic control (HbA(1c) <7%) clearly improves microvascular outcomes. However, hypoglycaemia and polypharmacy are the main drawbacks of tight control. Factors that influence the benefits and drawbacks include age, longevity and co-morbidities, including the geriatric 'syndromes' of frailty and falls. We favour the explicit risk-stratified approach of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (VA/DoD) guidelines, which set HbA(1c) target ranges based on physiological age or the presence/severity of major co-morbidities and microvascular complications. There are clear benefits of blood pressure and cholesterol control (primarily reduction of macrovascular events, but also microvascular events), and their overall cost effectiveness exceeds that of glycaemic control. Issues with treatment for hypertension include potential side effects of drugs, a potential increased risk of falls and risks of polypharmacy. Nevertheless, the evidence for a blood pressure target of <140/80 mmHg is reasonably strong if it can be achieved safely. In general, we recommend use of an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) and an LDL-C target of <100 mg/dL, especially if an individual cannot tolerate a moderate dose of a statin.

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.

BACKGROUND: Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. METHODS: We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. RESULTS: The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. CONCLUSION: The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.