Primary Care and Community-Based Partnerships to Enhance HPV Vaccine Delivery.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: With growing vaccination misinformation and mistrust, strategies to improve vaccination communication across community-based settings are needed. METHODS: The Rural Adolescent Vaccine Enterprise (RAVE), a 5-year (2018-2022) stepped-wedge cluster randomized study, tested a clinic-based practice facilitation intervention designed to improve HPV vaccination. An exploratory aim sought to explore the use of partnerships between primary care clinics and a community partner of their choosing, to implement a social marketing campaign related to HPV immunization. We assessed perceptions about the value and success of the partnership, and barriers and facilitators to its implementation using a 29-item community partner survey, key informant interviews, and field notes from practice facilitators. RESULTS: Of the initial 45 clinics participating in RAVE, 9 were unable to either start or complete the study, and 36 participants (80.0%) were actively engaged. Of these, 16/36 clinics (44.4%) reported establishing successful partnerships, 10 reported attempting to develop partnerships (27.8%), and another 10 reported not developing a partnership (27.8%), which were often caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common partnership was with public health departments at 27.3%. Other partnerships involved libraries, school districts, and local businesses. More than half (63.7%) reported that creating messages regarding getting HPV vaccination was moderately to very challenging. Just under half reported (45.5%) that messaging was hard because of a lack of understanding about the seriousness of diseases caused by HPV, parents being against vaccines because of safety concerns, and religious values that result in a lack of openness to HPV vaccines. Community partners' health priorities changed as a result of RAVE, with 80% prioritizing childhood immunizations as a result of the RAVE partnership. CONCLUSIONS: Community groups want to partner with primary care organizations to serve their patients and populations. More research is needed on how best to bring these groups together.

Clinic-level differences in human papillomavirus vaccination rates among rural and urban Oregon primary care clinics.

PURPOSE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection contributes to vaccine-preventable malignancies. Rural populations experience lower HPV vaccination rates despite similar rates of other childhood vaccinations. Individual- and clinic-level characteristics likely contribute to this disparity, but little is known about the separate roles of each. We compared clinic-level HPV vaccination rates among rural versus urban primary care clinics, identified factors associated with HPV vaccination, and separately assessed the impact of individual- and clinic-level characteristics on rural disparities in HPV vaccination. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 537 Oregon primary care clinics participating in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program during 2019. Vaccination status was assessed using Oregon's ALERT Immunization Information System and included HPV vaccine ≥ 1 dose for ages 11 and 12; HPV vaccination up to date (UTD) for ages 13-17, and coadministration with tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap). Rural versus urban clinic-level outcomes were assessed using negative binomial regression. FINDINGS: Participating clinics were 24.5% rural and 75.6% urban. Family medicine clinics comprised 71.1%; pediatrics, 16.9%; and mixed, 12.1%. Across clinics, the average proportion of patients qualifying for VFC was 43%, and non-White patients were 14.1%. The mean rate of HPV vaccine ≥1 dose was lower among rural clinics (46.9% vs 51.1%, P = .039), as was vaccination UTD (40.5% vs 49.9%, P < .001). Adjusting for differences in individual- and clinic-level characteristics, rural disparities were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both individual- and clinic-level characteristics play a role in rural disparities in HPV vaccination, and modifiable clinic-level differences may be opportune targets to address these disparities.

The interface between U.S. primary care clinics and pharmacies for HPV vaccination delivery: A scoping literature review.

Completion of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine series remains low. Partnerships between primary care (PC) clinics and local pharmacies could boost vaccination rates. We conducted a scoping literature review to address what is known and what gaps exist on the interface between U.S. primary care clinics and pharmacies for HPV vaccination. We searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL file and Cumulative Index to Allied Health Literature for articles published between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2020. Search subjects included: 1) Pharmacy HPV Vaccination, 2) Pharmacy/PC Collaboration, and 3) Pharmacy/PC Collaboration vaccination. We developed an abstraction form to collect information on research methods, settings, strengths, weaknesses and findings. We screened 407 articles for inclusion; 17 met inclusion criteria: 13 (76.5%) reported on observational/descriptive studies; 4 articles (23.5%) reported on intervention studies, none of which were conducted in rural areas. Observational studies focused on willingness to be vaccinated for HPV and facilitators and barriers for vaccination, especially at pharmacies. Many studies concluded that knowledge about and comfort with HPV vaccine administration were needed for all vaccination stakeholders (clinicians, pharmacists, parents, and patients). Intervention studies were small with weak study designs, many of which revealed that pharmacists were not successful in integrating services into broader primary care systems. Challenges included getting physicians to sign standing order protocols, poor service delivery due to engagement barriers, and low parental demand for pharmacists to administer the vaccine. In conclusion, larger more discerning studies are needed to fully understand the potential of primary care and pharmacy interactions for HPV vaccination.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance. RESULTS: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA. CONCLUSION: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.

Place Matters: Closing the Gap on Rural Primary Care Quality Improvement Capacity-the Healthy Hearts Northwest Study.

CONTEXT: To compare rural independent and health system primary care practices with urban practices to external practice facilitation support in terms of recruitment, readiness, engagement, retention, and change in quality improvement (QI) capacity and quality metric performance. METHODS: The setting consisted of 135 small or medium-sized primary care practices participating in the Healthy Hearts Northwest quality improvement initiative. The practices were stratified by geography, rural or urban, and by ownership (independent [physician-owned] or system-owned [health/hospital system]). The quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey tool was used to measure QI at baseline and after 12 months of practice facilitation. Changes in 3 clinical quality measures (CQMs)-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control, and tobacco use screening and cessation-were measured at baseline in 2015 and follow-up in 2017. RESULTS: Rural practices were more likely to enroll in the study, with 1 out of 3.5 rural recruited practices enrolled, compared with 1 out of 7 urban practices enrolled. Rural independent practices had the lowest QI capacity at baseline, making the largest gain in establishing a regular QI process involving cross-functional teams. Rural independent practices made the greatest improvement in meeting the BP control CQM, from 55.5% to 66.1% (P ≤ .001) and the smoking cessation metric, from 72.3% to 86.7% (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Investing practice facilitation and sustained QI strategies in rural independent practices, where the need is high and resources are low, will yield benefits that outweigh centrally prescribed models.

The Importance of Practice Facilitation in Primary Care When Pandemic Takes Hold: Relationships of Resilience.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in recent history as radically and forcefully changing healthcare delivery. Practice facilitators, who often use tools of improvement science, have long played a critical role in supporting routine primary care practice transformation when healthcare system and policy changes occur. However, current events have taken many healthcare systems to the brink of collapse. Our practice facilitation team, which has a long history of sustained primary care partnerships in rural under-resourced settings, is finding creative solutions to carry forward work in research and quality improvement, and the tools of improvement science are well-suited to address rapidly changing demands of primary care during such a crisis. We reflect here on practice facilitation through the pandemic-the value of applied improvement science, and the critical necessity of strong relationships, flexibility, and creativity to support ongoing primary care partnerships.

A Taxonomy for External Support for Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: There is no commonly accepted comprehensive framework for describing the practical specifics of external support for practice change. Our goal was to develop such a taxonomy that could be used by both external groups or researchers and health care leaders. METHODS: The leaders of 8 grants from Agency for Research and Quality for the EvidenceNOW study of improving cardiovascular preventive services in over 1500 primary care practices nationwide worked collaboratively over 18 months to develop descriptions of key domains that might comprehensively characterize any external support intervention. Combining literature reviews with our practical experiences in this initiative and past work, we aimed to define these domains and recommend measures for them. RESULTS: The taxonomy includes 1 domain to specify the conceptual model(s) on which an intervention is built and another to specify the types of support strategies used. Another 5 domains provide specifics about the dose/mode of that support, the types of change process and care process changes that are encouraged, and the degree to which the strategies are prescriptive and standardized. A model was created to illustrate how the domains fit together and how they would respond to practice needs and reactions. CONCLUSIONS: This taxonomy and its use in more consistently documenting and characterizing external support interventions should facilitate communication and synergies between 3 areas (quality improvement, practice change research, and implementation science) that have historically tended to work independently. The taxonomy was designed to be as useful for practices or health systems managing change as it is for research.

A Community-based Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE): an atopic dermatitis primary prevention study using emollients-protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic skin disorder often beginning in infancy. Skin barrier dysfunction early in life serves as a central event in the pathogenesis of AD. In infants at high risk of developing AD, preventative application of lipid-rich emollients may reduce the risk of developing AD. This study aims to measure the effectiveness of this intervention in a population not selected for risk via a pragmatic, randomized, physician-blinded trial in the primary care setting. METHODS: Infant-parent dyads are recruited from a primary care practice participating through one of four practice-based research networks in Oregon, Colorado, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Eligible dyads are randomized to the intervention (daily use of lipid-rich emollient) or the control (no emollient) group (n = 625 infants in each) and are followed for 24 months. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of physician-diagnosed AD and secondary outcomes include caregiver-reported measures of AD and development of other atopic diseases. Data collection occurs via chart review and surveys, with no study visits required. Data will be analyzed utilizing intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: AD is a common skin condition in infants that affects quality of life and is associated with the development of other atopic diseases. If a safe intervention, such as application of lipid-rich emollients, in the general population effectively decreases AD prevalence, this could alter the guidance given by providers regarding routine skin care of infants. Because of the pragmatic design, we anticipate that this trial will yield generalizable results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03409367. Registered on 11 February 2018.

Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Team-Based to Clinician-Focused Implementation of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care.

Introduction: For many patients, primary care is an appropriate setting for advance care planning (ACP). ACP focuses on what matters most to patients and ensuring health care supports patient-defined goals. ACP may involve interactions between a clinician and a patient, but for seriously ill patients ACP could be managed by a team. Methods: We are conducting a cluster randomized trial comparing team-based to clinician-focused ACP using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in 42 practices recruited from 7 practice-based research networks (PBRNs). Practices were randomized to one of the two models. Patients are referred to the study after engaging in ACP in primary care. Our target enrollment is 1260 subjects. Patient data are collected at enrollment, six months and one year. Primary outcomes are patient-reported goal-concordant care and days at home. Secondary outcomes include additional patient measures, clinician/team experience, and practice-level measures of SICP implementation. Study Implementation: This trial was designed and is conducted by the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC), a consortium of PBRNs focused on integrating engagement with patients, families, and other stakeholders into primary care research and practice. The trial pairs a comparative effectiveness study with implementation of a new program and is designed to balance fidelity to the assigned model with flexibility to allow each practice to adapt implementation to their environment and priorities. Our dissemination will report the results of comparing the two models and the implementation experience of the practices to create guidance for the spread of ACP in primary care.

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance. METHODS: Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation.

The Role of Health Extension in Practice Transformation and Community Health Improvement: Lessons From 5 Case Studies.

Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act triggered 2 successive grant initiatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, allowing for the evolution of health extension models among 20 states, not limited to support for in-clinic primary care practice transformation, but also including a broader concept incorporating technical assistance for practices and their communities to address social determinants of health. Five states stand out in stretching the boundaries of health extension: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. Their stories reveal lessons learned regarding the successes and challenges, including the importance of building sustained relationships with practices and community coalitions; of documenting success in broad terms as well as achieving diverse outcomes of meaning to different stakeholders; of understanding that health extension is a function that can be carried out by an individual or group depending on resources; and of being prepared for political struggles over "turf" and ownership of extension. All states saw the need for long-term, sustained fundraising beyond grants in an environment expecting a short-term return on investment, and they were challenged operating in a shifting health system landscape where the creativity and personal relationships built with small primary care practices was hindered when these practices were purchased by larger health delivery systems.

Assessing quality improvement capacity in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Healthy Hearts Northwest (H2N) is a study of external support strategies to build quality improvement (QI) capacity in primary care with a focus on cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation. METHODS: To guide practice facilitator support, experts in practice transformation identified seven domains of QI capacity and mapped items from a previously validated medical home assessment tool to them. A practice facilitator (PF) met with clinicians and staff in each practice to discuss each item on the Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA) resulting in a practice-level response to each item. We examined the association between the QICA total and sub-scale scores, practice characteristics, a measure of prior experience with managing practice change, and performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for the three cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: The QICA score was associated with prior experience managing change and moderately associated with two of the three CQMs: aspirin use (r = 0.16, p = 0.049) and blood pressure control (r = 0.18, p = 0.013). Rural practices and those with 2-5 clinicians had lower QICA scores.. CONCLUSIONS: The QICA is useful for assessing QI capacity within a practice and may serve as a guide for both facilitators and primary care practices in efforts to build this capacity and improve measures of clinical quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier# NCT02839382, retrospectively registered on July 21, 2016.

A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial designed to improve completion of HPV vaccine series and reduce missed opportunities to vaccinate in rural primary care practices.

OBJECTIVES: To test the effectiveness of a comprehensive team-based intervention to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination completion rates and reduce missed opportunities to vaccinate in rural Oregon. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Forty family physicians and pediatricians who are members of the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. INTERVENTION: Tailored to individual practice needs, components will include (1) practice facilitation with clinicians, nurses, front office staff, and others who have patient contact to redesign patient care and communication strategies to optimize HPV vaccine series completion; (2) workflow mapping adapted to practice context to support HPV vaccine delivery; (3) a practice improvement model designed to firmly establish reminder and recall systems and then standing orders; (4) education for patients and parents that underscores HPV vaccination is safe, effective, and an important approach for reducing cancer risk; and (5) partnering with community organizations to plan and implement a social marketing campaign on HPV vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Initiation and completion of the HPV vaccine series as well as reduction in rates of missed opportunities to vaccinate derived from Oregon Immunization Program data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govPRS, NCT03604393 : .Trial was registered on July 11, 2018. The first participant was enrolled on September 11, 2018.

The Burden of Childhood Atopic Dermatitis in the Primary Care Setting: A Report from the Meta-LARC Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the burden of atopic dermatitis (AD) encountered in US primary care practices and the frequency and type of skin care practices routinely used in children. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of AD in children 0 to 5 years attending primary care practices in the United States and to describe routine skin care practices used in this population. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study of a convenience sample of children under the age of 5 attending primary care practices for any reason. SETTING: Ten primary care practices in 5 US states. RESULTS: Among 652 children attending primary care practices, the estimated prevalence of ever having AD was 24% (95% CI, 21-28) ranging from 15% among those under the age of 1 to 38% among those aged 4 to 5 years. The prevalence of comorbid asthma was higher among AD participants compared to those with no AD, namely, 12% and 4%, respectively (P < .001). Moisturizers with high water:oil ratios were most commonly used (ie, lotions) in the non-AD population, whereas moisturizers with low water:oil content (ie, ointments) were most common when AD was present. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a large burden of AD in the primary care practice setting in the US. The majority of households reported skin care practices that may be detrimental to the skin barrier, such as frequent bathing and the routine use of moisturizers with high water: oil ratios. Clinical trials are needed to identify which skin care practices are optimal for reducing the significant burden of AD in the community.

Engaging Primary Care Practices in Studies of Improvement: Did You Budget Enough for Practice Recruitment?

PURPOSE: The methods and costs to enroll small primary care practices in large, regional quality improvement initiatives are unknown. We describe the recruitment approach, cost, and resources required to recruit and enroll 500 practices in the Northwest and Midwest regional cooperatives participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded initiative, EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care. METHODS: The project management team of each cooperative tracked data on recruitment methods used for identifying and connecting with practices. We developed a cost-of-recruitment template and used it to record personnel time and associated costs of travel and communication materials. RESULTS: A total of 3,669 practices were contacted during the 14- to 18-month recruitment period, resulting in 484 enrolled practices across the 6 states served by the 2 cooperatives. The average number of interactions per enrolled practice was 7, with a total of 29,100 hours and a total cost of $2.675 million, or $5,529 per enrolled practice. Prior partnerships predicted recruiting almost 1 in 3 of these practices as contrasted to 1 in 20 practices without a previous relationship or warm hand-off. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment of practices for large-scale practice quality improvement transformation initiatives is difficult and costly. The cost of recruiting practices without existing partnerships is expensive, costing 7 times more than reaching out to familiar practices. Investigators initiating and studying practice quality improvement initiatives should budget adequate funds to support high-touch recruitment strategies, including building trusted relationships over a long time frame, for a year or more.

Quality of Colonoscopy Performed in Rural Practice: Experience From the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative and the Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: Colon cancer screening is effective. To complete screening in 80% of individuals over age 50 years by 2018 will require adequate colonoscopy capacity throughout the country, including rural areas, where colonoscopy providers may have less specialized training. Our aim was to study the quality of colonoscopy in rural settings. METHODS: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) collaborated to recruit Oregon rural practices to submit colonoscopy reports to CORI's National Endoscopic Database (NED). Ten ORPRN sites were compared to non-ORPRN rural (n = 11) and nonrural (n = 43) sites between January 2009 and October 2011. Established colonoscopy quality measures were calculated for all sites. RESULTS: No ORPRN physicians were gastroenterologists compared with 82% of nonrural physicians. ORPRN practices reached the cecum in 87.4% of exams compared with 89.3% of rural sites (P = .0002) and 90.9% of nonrural sites (P < .0001). Resected polyps were less likely to be retrieved (84.7% vs 91.6%; P < .0001) and sent to pathology (77.1% vs 91.3%; P < .0001) at ORPRN practices compared to nonrural sites. The overall polyp detection (39.0% vs 40.3%) was similar (P = .217) between ORPRN and nonrural practices. Of exams with polyps, the rate for largest polyp on exam 6-9 mm was 20.8% at ORPRN sites, compared to 26.8% at nonrural sites (P < .0001), and for polyps >9mm 16.6% vs 18.7% (P = .106). CONCLUSION: ORPRN sites performed well on most colonoscopy quality measures, suggesting that high-quality colonoscopy can be performed in rural settings.

Impact of a Boot Camp Translation Intervention on Self-Management Support in Primary Care: A Report From the INSTTEPP Trial and Meta-LARC Consortium.

PURPOSE: Self-management support (SMS) is a pillar of the well-established chronic care model and a key component of improving outcomes for patients with chronic illnesses. The Implementing Networks' Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) trial sought to determine whether a boot camp translation process could assist small to medium-sized primary care practices with care managers implement SMS tools. METHODS: INSTTEPP used a stepped-wedge design across 16 practices from 4 practice-based research networks over 12 months. Each network completed a 2-month boot camp translation for creating SMS tools with 16 participants (2 patients, a clinician, and a care manager from each of 4 practices) and subsequent implementation. Outcome measures for patients were the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), self-rated health, and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) process-of-care items at baseline, 1 and 2 months. Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) and theory of planned behavior outcomes were assessed at 5 points over 10 months for clinicians and staff. RESULTS: A total of 297 patients and 89 practice staff and clinicians completed surveys during the study. Over successive 2-month sampling periods, intervention patients experienced greater improvement in PACIC process of care and self-rated health compared to control patients (P<0.0001 and P=0.0273, respectively). PAM (P=0.3515), CS-PAM (P=0.7464), and theory of planned behavior outcomes (P>0.10 for all) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Significant effects on process of care and self-rated health are evidence that the boot camp translation intervention impacted SMS. A larger trial with a typical 6-month boot camp intervention may show significant effects on other outcomes.

Implementing Community-Created Self-Management Support Tools in Primary Care Practices: Multimethod Analysis From the INSTTEPP Study.

PURPOSE: With one-half of Americans projected to be living with at least one chronic condition before 2020, enhancing patient self-management support (SMS) may improve health-related behaviors and clinical outcomes. Routine SMS implementation in primary care settings is difficult. Little is known about the practice conditions required for successful implementation of SMS tools. METHODS: Four primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) recruited 16 practices to participate in a boot camp translation process to adapt patient-centered SMS tools. Boot camp translation sessions were held over a 2-month period with 2 patients, a clinician, and a care manager from each practice. Qualitative case comparison and qualitative comparative analysis were used to examine practice conditions needed to implement SMS tools. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Four different practice conditions affected the implementation of new SMS tools: functional practice organization; system that enables innovation and change; presence of a visible, activated champion; and synergy and alignment of SMS changes with other work. Qualitative comparative analysis suggested that it was necessary to have an enabling system, a visible champion, and synergy for a practice to at least minimally implement the SMS tools. Sufficiency testing, however, failed to show robust consistency to satisfactorily explain conditions required to implement new SMS tools. CONCLUSIONS: To implement tailored self-management support tools relatively rapidly, the minimum necessary conditions include a system that enables innovation and change, presence of a visible champion, and alignment of SMS changes with other work; yet, these alone are insufficient to ensure successful implementation.