Expanding Access to Comprehensive Geriatric Evaluation via Telehealth: Development of Hybrid-Virtual Home Visits.

BACKGROUND: In response to the aging population, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeks to expand access to evidence-based practices which support community-dwelling older persons such as the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) program. GRACE is a multidisciplinary care model which provides home-based geriatric evaluation and management for older Veterans residing within a 20-mile drive radius from the hospital. We sought to expand the geographic reach of VA-GRACE by developing a hybrid-virtual home visit (TeleGRACE). OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to: (1) describe challenges encountered and solutions implemented during the iterative, pre-implementation program development process; and (2) illustrate potential successes of the program with two case examples. DESIGN: Quality improvement project with longitudinal qualitative data collection. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The hybrid-virtual home visit involved a telehealth technician travelling to patients' homes and connecting virtually to VA-GRACE team members who participated remotely. APPROACH & PARTICIPANTS: We collected multiple data streams throughout program development: TeleGRACE staff periodic reflections, fieldnotes, and team meeting notes; and VA-GRACE team member interviews. KEY RESULTS: The five program domains that required attention and problem-solving were: telehealth connectivity and equipment, virtual physical examination, protocols and procedures, staff training, and team integration. For each domain, we describe several challenges and solutions. An example from the virtual physical examination domain: several iterations were required to identify the combination of telehealth stethoscope with dedicated headphones that allowed remote nurse practitioners to hear heart and lung sounds. The two cases illustrate how this hybrid-virtual home visit model provided care for patients who would not otherwise have received timely healthcare services. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a blueprint to translate an in-person home-based geriatrics program into a hybrid-virtual model and support the feasibility of using hybrid-virtual home visits to expand access to comprehensive geriatric evaluation and ongoing care for high-risk, community-dwelling older persons who reside geographically distant from the primary VA facility.

Comprehensive Caregiver Supports and Ascertainment and Treatment of Veteran Pain.

Disabled Veterans commonly experience pain. The Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) provides training, a stipend, and services to family caregivers of eligible Veterans to support their caregiving role. We compared ascertainment of veteran pain and pain treatment through health care encounters and medications (pain indicators) of participants (treated group) and non-participants (comparison group) using inverse probability treatment weights. Modeled results show that the proportion of Veterans with a pain indicator in the first year post-application was higher than that pre-application for both groups. However, the proportion of Veterans with a pain indicator was substantially higher in the treatment group: 76.1% versus 63.9% in the comparison group (p < .001). Over time, the proportion of Veterans with any pain indicator fell and group differences lessened. However, differences persisted through 8 years post-application (p < .001). PCAFC caregivers appear to help Veterans engage in pain treatment at higher rates than caregivers not in PCAFC.

The VA National TeleNeurology Program implementation: a mixed-methods evaluation guided by RE-AIM framework.

Introduction: The Veteran Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health (ORH) funded the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National TeleNeurology Program (NTNP) as an Enterprise-Wide Initiative (EWI). NTNP is an innovative healthcare delivery model designed to fill the patient access gap for outpatient neurological care especially for Veterans residing in rural communities. The specific aim was to apply the RE-AIM framework in a pragmatic evaluation of NTNP services. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective implementation evaluation. Guided by the pragmatic application of the RE-AIM framework, we conceptualized a mixed-methods evaluation for key metrics: (1) reach into the Veteran patient population assessed as total NTNP new patient consult volume and total NTNP clinical encounters (new and return); (2) effectiveness through configurational analysis of conditions leading to high Veteran satisfaction and referring providers perceived effectiveness; (3) adoption and implementation by VA sites through site staff and NTNP interviews; (4) implementation success through perceived management, implementation barriers, facilitators, and adaptations and through rapid qualitative analysis of multiple stakeholders' assessments; and (5) maintenance of NTNP through monitoring quarterly TeleNeurology consultation volume. Results: NTNP was successfully implemented in 13 VA Medical Centers over 2 years. The total NTNP new patient consult volume in fiscal year 2021 (FY21) was 836 (58% rurally residing); this increased to 1,706 in fiscal year 2022 (FY22) (55% rurally residing). Total (new and follow-up) NTNP clinical encounters were 1,306 in FY21 and 3,730 in FY22. Overall, the sites reported positive experiences with program implementation and perceived that the program was serving Veterans with little access to neurological care. Veterans also reported high satisfaction with the NTNP program. We identified the patient level of perceived excellent teleneurologist-patient communications, reduced need to drive to get care, and that NTNP provided care that the Veteran otherwise could not access as key factors related to high Veteran satisfaction. Conclusions: The VA NTNP demonstrated substantial reach, adoption, effectiveness, implementation success, and maintenance over the first 2 years of the program. The NTNP was highly acceptable to both the clinical providers making the referrals and the Veterans receiving the referred video care. The pragmatic application of the RE-AIM framework to guide implementation evaluations is appropriate, comprehensive, and recommended for future applications.

Measuring the unmet needs of American military Veterans and their caregivers: Survey protocol of the HERO CARE survey.

BACKGROUND: Empowering Veterans to age in place is a Department of Veterans Affairs priority. Family or unpaid caregivers play an important role in supporting Veterans to achieve this goal. Effectively meeting the needs of Veterans and caregivers requires identifying unmet needs and relevant gaps in resources to address those needs. METHODS: Using a modified Socio-Ecological Model, we developed a prospective longitudinal panel design survey. We randomly selected 20,000 community-dwelling Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), across five VHA sites. We oversampled Veterans with a higher predicted 2-year long-term institutional care (LTIC) risk. Veterans were mailed a packet containing a Veteran survey and a caregiver survey, to be answered by their caregiver if they had one. The Veteran survey assessed the following health-related domains: physical, mental, social determinants of health, and caregiver assistance. Caregivers completed questions regarding their demographic factors, caregiving activities, impact of caregiving, use of VA and non-VA services, and caregiver support resources. Follow-up surveys will be repeated twice at 12-month intervals for the same respondents. This article describes the HERO CARE survey protocol, content, and response rates. RESULTS: We received responses from 8,056 Veterans and 3,579 caregivers between July 2021 and January 2022, with 95.6% being received via mail. Veteran respondents were mostly males (96.5%), over 65 years of age (94.9%), married (55.0%), Non-Hispanic White (75.2%), and residing in urban areas (80.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal survey is unique in its comprehensive assessment of domains relevant to older Veterans stratified by LTIC risk and their caregivers, focusing on social determinants, caregiver support, and the use of caregiver support resources. Survey data will be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and VA data. The results of this study will inform better planning of non-institutional care services and policy for Veterans and their caregivers.

Peer-to-Patient-Aligned Care Team (Peer-to-PACT; P2P), a Peer-Led Home Visit Intervention Program for Targeting and Improving Long-term Care Services and Support for Veterans With High Needs and High Risk: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Keeping older veterans with high needs and high risk (HNHR) who are at risk of long-term institutional care safely in their homes for as long as possible is a Department of Veterans Affairs priority. Older veterans with HNHR face disproportionate barriers and disparities to engaging in their care, including accessing care and services. Veterans with HNHR often have poor ability to maintain health owing to complicated unmet health and social needs. The use of peer support specialists (peers) is a promising approach to improving patient engagement and addressing unmet needs. The Peer-to-Patient-Aligned Care Team (Peer-to-PACT; P2P) intervention is a multicomponential home visit intervention designed to support older veterans with HNHR to age in place. Participants receive a peer-led home visit to identify unmet needs and home safety risks aligned with the age-friendly health system model; care coordination, health care system navigation, and linking to needed services and resources in collaboration with their PACT; and patient empowerment and coaching using Department of Veterans Affairs whole health principles. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the preliminary effect of the P2P intervention on patient health care engagement. The second aim is to identify the number and types of needs and unmet needs as well as needs addressed using the P2P needs identification tool. The third aim is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the P2P intervention delivered over 6 months. METHODS: We will use a quantitative-qualitative convergent mixed methods approach to evaluate the P2P intervention outcomes. For our primary outcome, we will conduct an independent, 2-tailed, 2-sample t test to compare the means of the 6-month pre-post differences in the number of outpatient PACT encounters between the intervention and matched comparison groups. Qualitative data analysis will follow a structured rapid approach using deductive coding as well as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Study enrollment began in July 2020 and was completed in March 2022. Our sample size consists of 114 veterans: 38 (33.3%) P2P intervention participants and 76 (66.7%) matched comparison group participants. Study findings are expected to be published in late 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Peers may help bridge the gap between PACT providers and veterans with HNHR by evaluating veterans' needs outside of the clinic, summarizing identified unmet needs, and developing team-based solutions in partnership with the PACT. The home visit component of the intervention provides eyes in the home and may be a promising and innovative tool to improve patient engagement. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46156.

Interdisciplinary Team Meetings in Practice: an Observational Study of IDTs, Sensemaking Around Care Transitions, and Readmission Rates.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary teams (IDTs) have been implemented to improve collaboration in hospital care, but their impact on patient outcomes, including readmissions, has been mixed. These mixed results might be rooted in differences in organization of IDT meetings between hospitals, as well as variation in IDT characteristics and function. We hypothesize that relationships between IDT members are an important team characteristic, influencing IDT function in terms of how members make sense of what is happening with patients, a process called sensemaking OBJECTIVE: (1) To describe how IDT meetings are organized in practice, (2) assess differences in IDT member relationships and sensemaking during patient discussions, and (3) explore their potential association with risk-stratified readmission rates (RSRRs). DESIGN: Observational, explanatory convergent mixed-methods case-comparison study of IDT meetings in 10 Veterans Affairs hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians participating in IDTs and facility leadership. APPROACH: Three-person teams observed and recorded IDT meetings during week-long visits. We used observational data to characterize relationships and sensemaking during IDT patient discussions. To assess sensemaking, we used 2 frameworks that reflected sensemaking around each patient's situation generally, and around care transitions specifically. We examined the association between IDT relationships and sensemaking, and RSRRs. KEY RESULTS: We observed variability in IDT organization, characteristics, and function across 10 hospitals. This variability was greater between hospitals than between teams at the same hospital. Relationship characteristics and both types of sensemaking were all significantly, positively correlated. General sensemaking regarding each patient was significantly negatively associated with RSRR (- 0.65, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: IDTs vary not only in how they are organized, but also in team relationships and sensemaking. Though our design does not allow for inferences of causation, these differences may be associated with hospital readmission rates.

Effectiveness of the VA-Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (VA-GRACE) program: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: As the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system seeks to expand access to comprehensive geriatric assessments, evidence-based models of care are needed to support community-dwelling older persons. We evaluated the VA Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (VA-GRACE) program's effect on mortality and readmissions, as well as patient, caregiver, and staff satisfaction. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included patients admitted to the Richard L. Roudebush VA hospital (2010-2019) who received VA-GRACE services post-discharge and usual care controls who were potentially eligible for VA-GRACE but did not receive services. The VA-GRACE program provided home-based comprehensive, multi-disciplinary geriatrics assessment, and ongoing care. Primary outcomes included 90-day and 1-year all-cause readmissions and mortality, and patient, caregiver, and staff satisfaction. We used propensity score modeling with overlapping weighting to adjust for differences in characteristics between groups. RESULTS: VA-GRACE patients (N = 683) were older than controls (N = 4313) (mean age 78.3 ± 8.2 standard deviation vs. 72.2 ± 6.9 years; p < 0.001) and had greater comorbidity (median Charlson Comorbidity Index 3 vs. 0; p < 0.001). VA-GRACE patients had higher 90-day readmissions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.55 [95%CI 1.01-2.38]) and higher 1-year readmissions (aOR 1.74 [95%CI 1.22-2.48]). However, VA-GRACE patients had lower 90-day mortality (aOR 0.31 [95%CI 0.11-0.92]), but no statistically significant difference in 1-year mortality was observed (aOR 0.88 [95%CI 0.55-1.41]). Patients and caregivers reported that VA-GRACE home visits reduced travel burden and the program linked Veterans and caregivers to needed resources. Primary care providers reported that the VA-GRACE team helped to reduce their workload, improved medication management for their patients, and provided a view into patients' daily living situation. CONCLUSIONS: The VA-GRACE program provides comprehensive geriatric assessments and care to high-risk, community-dwelling older persons with high rates of satisfaction from patients, caregivers, and providers. Widespread deployment of programs like VA-GRACE will be required to support Veterans aging in place.

The Perils of a "My Work Here is Done" perspective: a mixed methods evaluation of sustainment of an evidence-based intervention for transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate quality improvement sustainment for Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and identify factors influencing sustainment, which is a challenge for Learning Healthcare Systems. METHODS: Mixed methods were used to assess changes in care quality across periods (baseline, implementation, sustainment) and identify factors promoting or hindering sustainment of care quality. PREVENT was a stepped-wedge trial at six US Department of Veterans Affairs implementation sites and 36 control sites (August 2015-September 2019). Quality of care was measured by the without-fail rate: proportion of TIA patients who received all of the care for which they were eligible among brain imaging, carotid artery imaging, neurology consultation, hypertension control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, antithrombotics, and high/moderate potency statins. Key informant interviews were used to identify factors associated with sustainment. RESULTS: The without-fail rate at PREVENT sites improved from 36.7% (baseline, 58/158) to 54.0% (implementation, 95/176) and settled at 48.3% (sustainment, 56/116). At control sites, the without-fail rate improved from 38.6% (baseline, 345/893) to 41.8% (implementation, 363/869) and remained at 43.0% (sustainment, 293/681). After adjustment, no statistically significant difference in sustainment quality between intervention and control sites was identified. Among PREVENT facilities, the without-fail rate improved ≥2% at 3 sites, declined ≥2% at two sites, and remained unchanged at one site during sustainment. Factors promoting sustainment were planning, motivation to sustain, integration of processes into routine practice, leadership engagement, and establishing systems for reflecting and evaluating on performance data. The only factor that was sufficient for improving quality of care during sustainment was the presence of a champion with plans for sustainment. Challenges during sustainment included competing demands, low volume, and potential problems with medical coding impairing use of performance data. Four factors were sufficient for declining quality of care during sustainment: low motivation, champion inactivity, no reflecting and evaluating on performance data, and absence of leadership engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention improved care quality during implementation; performance during sustainment was heterogeneous across intervention sites and not different from control sites. Learning Healthcare Systems seeking to sustain evidence-based practices should embed processes within routine care and establish systems for reviewing and reflecting upon performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02769338 ).

Engaging Veterans, caregivers, and system stakeholders to improve VA home and community-based services.

OBJECTIVE: To understand Veterans', caregivers', and stakeholders' perceptions of home-based and caregiver support services and their suggestions for improvement to better align services with needs. DATA SOURCES: We identified Veterans and caregivers at four EDCoE sites using the VA high-need, high-risk list, representing Veterans who qualify for home-based primary care. We randomly selected Veterans and their caregivers, stratifying by age. We also identified leaders and clinicians involved in clinical service delivery. STUDY DESIGN: Between February and November 2019, we conducted in-person and telephone interviews and focus groups using semi-structured questions tailored to each group, analyzing them through a rapid qualitative analysis approach and providing real-time feedback to operational partners. DATA COLLECTION: Thirty-four Veterans, 24 caregivers, and 39 leaders and clinicians participated. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Respondents identified key categories of experience that could be monitored and improved, including navigating an increasingly complex system, coordinating and communicating across services, and unmet household and financial needs. Veterans and caregivers described quality in terms of reliability, timeliness, standardization, and accountability. Summaries were created to contextualize results and to highlight gaps and opportunities for new measures and policy development. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborating with Veterans, caregivers, and stakeholders enables us to understand their daily experiences and to develop meaningful approaches to evaluating services that incorporate their perspectives. Providing regular, actionable feedback to operational partners informs policy and operational initiatives, such as the scope of services and infrastructure for system navigation.

The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. OBJECTIVE: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. DESIGN: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. INTERVENTIONS: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. KEY RESULTS: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. CONCLUSION: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

Reflective writing: a tool to support continuous learning and improved effectiveness in implementation facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Implementation facilitators support the adoption of evidence-based practices and other improvement efforts in complex healthcare settings. Facilitators are trained to develop essential facilitation skills and facilitator effectiveness is typically evaluated post-implementation, but little is known about how facilitators apply and adapt didactic knowledge after training, or how learning and refining experiential knowledge occurs during the facilitation process. We propose the use of reflective writing as a tool to document and support facilitator learning and facilitator effectiveness. METHODS: Using an instrumental case study of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project, we explore the use of reflective writing by facilitators to support their learning and effectiveness. Six primary care clinics participated in weekly hour-long facilitation calls over a 12-month period to implement quality improvement projects related to care coordination. Two facilitators completed templated reflections after each facilitation call for their assigned sites, totaling 269 reflections. We used the declarative-procedural-reflective model, which defines the process of skill development in clinical practice, to qualitatively analyze the reflections. Two independent coders used content analysis principles to code text that captured facilitators' observations, evaluations, interpretations, and communication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze reflections by facilitator and by code within and across reflections. RESULTS: CTAC facilitators primarily used the reflections to summarize the calls (observation), assess the facilitation process and the tasks and activities they used (evaluation), document their thoughts about how to improve their own effectiveness (interpretation), and describe their communication with implementing teams. Ninety-one percent of reflections included observations, 42% interpretation, 41% evaluation, and 44% facilitator communication. In total, we coded 677 segments of text within reflections: 39% represented observation, 20% interpretation, 18% evaluation, and 23% facilitator communication. CONCLUSIONS: The process of reflective writing allowed the CTAC facilitators the time and structure to evaluate their facilitation and to think critically about how to adjust their facilitation in response to their observations and interpretations. Reflective writing is a feasible and acceptable tool to support and document facilitator learning and effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03063294 ) on February 24, 2017.

Toolkit and distance coaching strategies: a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to implement care coordination quality improvement projects in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination tools and toolkits can be challenging to implement. Practice facilitation, an active but expensive strategy, may facilitate toolkit implementation. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of distance coaching, a form of practice facilitation, for improving the implementation of care coordination quality improvement (QI) projects. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) initiative. Twelve matched US Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were randomized to receive coaching and an online care coordination toolkit ("coached"; n = 6) or access to the toolkit only ("non-coached"; n = 6). We did interviews at six, 12, and 18 months. For coached sites, we'ly collected site visit fieldnotes, prospective coach logs, retrospective coach team debriefs, and project reports. We employed matrix analysis using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a taxonomy of outcomes. We assessed each site's project(s) using an adapted Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Eleven sites implemented a local CTAC project. Eight sites (5 coached, 3 non-coached) used at least one tool from the toolkit. Coached sites implemented significantly more complex projects than non-coached sites (11.5 vs 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.75-6.25, p < 0.001); engaged in more formal implementation processes (planning, engaging, reflecting and evaluating); and generally had larger, more multidisciplinary QI teams. Regardless of coaching status, sites focused on internal organizational improvement and low-intensity educational projects rather than the full suite of care coordination tools. At 12 months, half the coached and non-coached sites had clinic-wide project implementation; the remaining coached sites had implemented most of their project(s), while the remaining non-coached sites had either not implemented anything or conducted limited pilots. At 18 months, coached sites reported ongoing effort to monitor, adapt, and spread their CTAC projects, while non-coached sites did not report much continuing work. Coached sites accrued benefits like improved clinic relationships and team QI skill building that non-coached sites did not describe. CONCLUSIONS: Coaching had a positive influence on QI skills of (and relationships among) coached sites' team members, and the scope and rigor of projects. However, a 12-month project period was potentially too short to ensure full project implementation or to address cross-setting or patient-partnered initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03063294 .

Multi-tiered external facilitation: the role of feedback loops and tailored interventions in supporting change in a stepped-wedge implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is a complex, relational implementation strategy that guides change processes. Facilitators engage in multiple activities and tailor efforts to local contexts. How this work is coordinated and shared among multiple, external actors and the contextual factors that prompt and moderate facilitators to tailor activities have not been well-described. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to improve the quality of transient ischemic attack care. Six sites in the Veterans Health Administration received external facilitation (EF) before and during a 1-year active implementation period. We examined how EF was employed and activated. Data analysis included prospective logs of facilitator correspondence with sites (160 site-directed episodes), stakeholder interviews (a total of 78 interviews, involving 42 unique individuals), and collaborative call debriefs (n=22) spanning implementation stages. Logs were descriptively analyzed across facilitators, sites, time periods, and activity types. Interview transcripts were coded for content related to EF and themes were identified. Debriefs were reviewed to identify instances of and utilization of EF during site critical junctures. RESULTS: Multi-tiered EF was supported by two groups (site-facing quality improvement [QI] facilitators and the implementation support team) that were connected by feedback loops. Each site received an average of 24 episodes of site-directed EF; most of the EF was delivered by the QI nurse. For each site, site-directed EF frequently involved networking (45%), preparation and planning (44%), process monitoring (44%), and/or education (36%). EF less commonly involved audit and feedback (20%), brainstorming solutions (16%), and/or stakeholder engagement (5%). However, site-directed EF varied widely across sites and time periods in terms of these facilitation types. Site participants recognized the responsiveness of the QI nurse and valued her problem-solving, feedback, and accountability support. External facilitators used monitoring and dialogue to intervene by facilitating redirection during challenging periods of uncertainty about project direction and feasibility for sites. External facilitators, in collaboration with the implementation support team, successfully used strategies tailored to diverse local contexts, including networking, providing data, and brainstorming solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-tiered facilitation capitalizing on emergent feedback loops allowed for tailored, site-directed facilitation. Critical juncture cases illustrate the complexity of EF and the need to often try multiple strategies in combination to facilitate implementation progress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurological Symptoms (PREVENT) is a registered trial ( NCT02769338 ), May 11, 2016-prospectively registered.

Acceptability of a complex team-based quality improvement intervention for transient ischemic attack: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurologic Symptoms (PREVENT) program was a complex quality improvement (QI) intervention targeting transient ischemic attack (TIA) evidence-based care. The aim of this study was to evaluate program acceptability among the QI teams and factors associated with degrees of acceptability. METHODS: QI teams from six Veterans Administration facilities participated in active implementation for a one-year period. We employed a mixed methods study to evaluate program acceptability. Multiple data sources were collected over implementation phases and triangulated for this evaluation. First, we conducted 30 onsite, semi-structured interviews during active implementation with 35 participants at 6 months; 27 interviews with 28 participants at 12 months; and 19 participants during program sustainment. Second, we conducted debriefing meetings after onsite visits and monthly virtual collaborative calls. All interviews and debriefings were audiotaped, transcribed, and de-identified. De-identified files were qualitatively coded and analyzed for common themes and acceptability patterns. We conducted mixed-methods matrix analyses comparing acceptability by satisfaction ratings and by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). RESULTS: Overall, the QI teams reported the PREVENT program was acceptable. The clinical champions reported high acceptability of the PREVENT program. At pre-implementation phase, reviewing quality data, team brainstorming solutions and development of action plans were rated as most useful during the team kickoff meetings. Program acceptability perceptions varied over time across active implementation and after teams accomplished actions plans and moved into sustainment. We observed team acceptability growth over a year of active implementation in concert with the QI team's self-efficacy to improve quality of care. Guided by the TFA, the QI teams' acceptability was represented by the respective seven components of the multifaceted acceptability construct. CONCLUSIONS: Program acceptability varied by time, by champion role on QI team, by team self-efficacy, and by perceived effectiveness to improve quality of care aligned with the TFA. A complex quality improvement program that fostered flexibility in local adaptation and supported users with access to data, resources, and implementation strategies was deemed acceptable and appropriate by front-line clinicians implementing practice changes in a large, national healthcare organization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02769338 .

Evidence based processes to prevent readmissions: more is better, a ten-site observational study.

BACKGROUND: 30-day hospital readmissions are an indicator of quality of care; hospitals are financially penalized by Medicare for high rates. Numerous care transition processes reduce readmissions in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the number of evidence-based transitional care processes used and the risk standardized readmission rate (RSRR). METHODS: Design: Mixed method, multi-stepped observational study. Data collection occurred 2014-2018 with data analyses completed in 2021. SETTING: Ten VA hospitals, chosen for 5-year trend of improving or worsening RSRR prior to study start plus documented efforts to reduce readmissions. PARTICIPANTS: During five-day site visits, three observers conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 314) with staff responsible for care transition processes and observations of care transitions work (n = 105) in inpatient medicine, geriatrics, and primary care. EXPOSURE: Frequency of use of twenty recommended care transition processes, scored 0-3. Sites' individual process scores and cumulative total scores were tested for correlation with RSRR. OUTCOME: best fit predicted RSRR for quarter of site visit based on the 21 months surrounding the site visits. RESULTS: Total scores: Mean 38.3 (range 24-47). No site performed all 20 processes. Two processes (pre-discharge patient education, medication reconciliation prior to discharge) were performed at all facilities. Five processes were performed at most facilities but inconsistently and the other 13 processes were more varied across facilities. Total care transition process score was correlated with RSRR (R2 = 0..61, p < 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Sites making use of more recommended care transition processes had lower RSRR. Given the variability in implementation and barriers noted by clinicians to consistently perform processes, further reduction of readmissions will likely require new strategies to facilitate implementation of these evidence-based processes, should include consideration of how to better incorporate activities into workflow, and may benefit from more consistent use of some of the more underutilized processes including patient inclusion in discharge planning and increased utilization of community supports. Although all facilities had inpatient social workers and/or dedicated case managers working on transitions, many had none or limited true bridging personnel (following the patient from inpatient to home and even providing home visits). More investment in these roles may also be needed.

Spreading the Veterans Health Administration's emergency department rapid access clinics (ED-RAC) innovation: Role of champions and local contexts.

BACKGROUND: Champions frequently facilitate change in healthcare, but the literature lacks specificity regarding champion activities and interactions with local contexts. The Veterans' Health Administration (VA) Emergency Department (ED) Rapid Access Clinic (ED-RAC) initiative used champions to spread an innovation aimed at achieving timely specialty follow-up care for ED patients. We assessed the roles champions and local contexts played in successful ED-RAC spread in the initiative's first year. METHODS: Our mixed method formative evaluation included serial questionnaires, fieldnotes from meetings, and champion interviews. We analyzed qualitative data from spread site rapid and non-rapid implementers, assessing champion and contextual factors. RESULTS: Among 24 participating VA sites, 11 were rapid implementers (i.e., implemented ED-RAC in first year), 13 were not. Site champions at rapid sites described crossing multiple organizational units to get tasks accomplished (e.g., gaining buy-in, requesting resources); champions at non-rapid sites experienced inter-departmental communication challenges and competing demands. Champions at rapid and non-rapid sites encountered similar context-related barriers (e.g. scheduling complexities) and facilitators (e.g. enthusiastic buy-in), but differed in leadership and resource barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying site champions was not enough to assure rapid innovation spread. Interdependencies between ED-RAC implementation requirements (e.g., boundary spanning, resources) and champion and contextual factors helped explain variations in progress. IMPLICATIONS: Tailoring spread support to champion and contextual factors may facilitate more rapid spread of innovations.

Seeding Structures for a Community of Practice Focused on Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA): Implementing Across Disciplines and Waves.

BACKGROUND: The Community of Practice (CoP) model represents one approach to address knowledge management to support effective implementation of best practices. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify CoP developmental strategies within the context of a national quality improvement project focused on improving the quality for patients receiving acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) care. DESIGN: Stepped wedge trial. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary staff at six Veterans Affairs medical facilities. INTERVENTIONS: To encourage site implementation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention, the trial included strategies to improve the development of a CoP: site kickoff meetings, CoP conference calls, and an interactive website (the "Hub"). APPROACH: Mixed-methods evaluation included data collected through a CoP attendance log; semi-structured interviews with site participants at 6 months (n = 32) and 12 months (n = 30), and CoP call facilitators (n = 2); and 22 CoP call debriefings. KEY RESULTS: The critical seeding structures that supported the cultivation of the CoP were the kickoffs which fostered relationships (key to the community element of CoPs) and provided the evidence base relevant to TIA care (key to the domain element of CoPs). The Hub provided the forum for sharing quality improvement plans and other tools which were further highlighted during the CoP calls (key to the practice element of CoPs). CoP calls were curated to create a positive context around participants' work by recognizing team successes. In addition to improving care at their local facilities, the community created a shared set of tools which built on their collective knowledge and could be shared within and outside the group. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT CoP advanced the mission of the learning healthcare system by successfully providing a forum for shared learning. The CoP was grown through seeding structures that included kickoffs, CoP calls, and the Hub. A CoP expands upon the learning collaborative implementation strategy as an effective implementation practice.

Implementation Evaluation of a Complex Intervention to Improve Timeliness of Care for Veterans with Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurologic Symptoms (PREVENT) program was designed to address systemic barriers to providing timely guideline-concordant care for patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). OBJECTIVE: We evaluated an implementation bundle used to promote local adaptation and adoption of a multi-component, complex quality improvement (QI) intervention to improve the quality of TIA care Bravata et al. (BMC Neurology 19:294, 2019). DESIGN: A stepped-wedge implementation trial with six geographically diverse sites. PARTICIPANTS: The six facility QI teams were multi-disciplinary, clinical staff. INTERVENTIONS: PREVENT employed a bundle of key implementation strategies: team activation; external facilitation; and a community of practice. This strategy bundle had direct ties to four constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): Champions, Reflecting & Evaluating, Planning, and Goals & Feedback. MAIN MEASURES: Using a mixed-methods approach guided by the CFIR and data matrix analyses, we evaluated the degree to which implementation success and clinical improvement were associated with implementation strategies. The primary outcomes were the number of completed implementation activities, the level of team organization and > 15 points improvement in the Without Fail Rate (WFR) over 1 year. KEY RESULTS: Facility QI teams actively engaged in the implementation strategies with high utilization. Facilities with the greatest implementation success were those with central champions whose teams engaged in planning and goal setting, and regularly reflected upon their quality data and evaluated their progress against their QI plan. The strong presence of effective champions acted as a pre-condition for the strong presence of Reflecting & Evaluating, Goals & Feedback, and Planning (rather than the other way around), helping to explain how champions at the +2 level influenced ongoing implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR-guided bundle of implementation strategies facilitated the local implementation of the PREVENT QI program and was associated with clinical improvement in the national VA healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02769338.