RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. METHODS: We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. RESULTS: Recommended prescribing occurred at 13-16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares/terapia , Centros Comunitários de Saúde/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Diabetes Mellitus , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Oregon , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , Melhoria de Qualidade , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Electronic health record (EHR) data can be extracted for calculating performance feedback, but users' perceptions of such feedback impact its effectiveness. Through qualitative analyses, we identified perspectives on barriers and facilitators to the perceived legitimacy of EHR-based performance feedback, in 11 community health centers (CHCs). Providers said such measures rarely accounted for CHC patients' complex lives or for providers' decisions as informed by this complexity, which diminished the measures' perceived validity. Suggestions for improving the perceived validity of performance feedback in CHCs are presented. Our findings add to the literature on EHR-based performance feedback by exploring provider perceptions in CHCs.
Assuntos
Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Centros Comunitários de Saúde/normas , Complicações do Diabetes/prevenção & controle , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/normas , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências/normas , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/uso terapêutico , Satisfação do Paciente , Provedores de Redes de Segurança/normas , Doenças Cardiovasculares/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/etiologia , Centros Comunitários de Saúde/organização & administração , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/organização & administração , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências/estatística & dados numéricos , Retroalimentação , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Provedores de Redes de Segurança/organização & administração , Recursos HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Little research has directly compared the effectiveness of implementation strategies in any setting, and we know of no prior trials directly comparing how effectively different combinations of strategies support implementation in community health centers. This paper outlines the protocol of the Study of Practices Enabling Implementation and Adaptation in the Safety Net (SPREAD-NET), a trial designed to compare the effectiveness of several common strategies for supporting implementation of an intervention and explore contextual factors that impact the strategies' effectiveness in the community health center setting. METHODS/DESIGN: This cluster-randomized trial compares how three increasingly hands-on implementation strategies support adoption of an evidence-based diabetes quality improvement intervention in 29 community health centers, managed by 12 healthcare organizations. The strategies are as follows: (arm 1) a toolkit, presented in paper and electronic form, which includes a training webinar; (arm 2) toolkit plus in-person training with a focus on practice change and change management strategies; and (arm 3) toolkit, in-person training, plus practice facilitation with on-site visits. We use a mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis: (i) baseline surveys on study clinic characteristics, to explore how these characteristics impact the clinics' ability to implement the tools and the effectiveness of each implementation strategy; (ii) quantitative data on change in rates of guideline-concordant prescribing; and (iii) qualitative data on the "how" and "why" underlying the quantitative results. The outcomes of interest are clinic-level results, categorized using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, within an interrupted time-series design with segmented regression models. This pragmatic trial will compare how well each implementation strategy works in "real-world" practices. DISCUSSION: Having a better understanding of how different strategies support implementation efforts could positively impact the field of implementation science, by comparing practical, generalizable methods for implementing clinical innovations in community health centers. Bridging this gap in the literature is a critical step towards the national long-term goal of effectively disseminating and implementing effective interventions into community health centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares/tratamento farmacológico , Centros Comunitários de Saúde/organização & administração , Difusão de Inovações , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Projetos de Pesquisa , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Centros Comunitários de Saúde/normas , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiologia , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/organização & administração , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Humanos , Capacitação em Serviço/organização & administração , Análise de Séries Temporais Interrompida , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Sistemas de AlertaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Integrated health care delivery systems devote considerable resources to developing quality improvement (QI) interventions. Clinics serving vulnerable populations rarely have the resources for such development but might benefit greatly from implementing approaches shown to be effective in other settings. Little trial-based research has assessed the feasibility and impact of such cross-setting translation and implementation in community health centers (CHCs). We hypothesized that it would be feasible to implement successful QI interventions from integrated care settings in CHCs and would positively impact the CHCs. METHODS: We adapted Kaiser Permanente's successful intervention, which targets guideline-based cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), through an iterative, stakeholder-driven process. We then conducted a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial in 11 CHCs in a staggered process with six "early" CHCs implementing the intervention one year before five "'late" CHCs. We measured monthly rates of patients with DM currently prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors/statins, if clinically indicated. Through segmented regression analysis, we evaluated the intervention's effects in June 2011-May 2013. Participants included ~6500 adult CHC patients with DM who were indicated for statins/ACE-inhibitors per national guidelines. RESULTS: Implementation of the intervention in the CHCs was feasible, with setting-specific adaptations. One year post-implementation, in the early clinics, there were estimated relative increases in guideline-concordant prescribing of 37.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI); 29.0-46.2 %) among patients indicated for both ACE-inhibitors and statins and 38.7 % (95 % CI; 23.2-54.2 %) among patients indicated for statins. No such increases were seen in the late (control) clinics in that period. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this was the first clinical trial testing the translation and implementation of a successful QI initiative from a private, integrated care setting into CHCs. This proved feasible and had significant impact but required considerable adaptation and implementation support. These results suggest the feasibility of adapting diverse strategies developed in integrated care settings for implementation in under-resourced clinics, with important implications for efficiently improving care quality in such settings. CLINICALTRIALS.gov: NCT02299791 .
Assuntos
Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administração & dosagem , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Centros Comunitários de Saúde/organização & administração , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Melhoria de Qualidade/organização & administração , Provedores de Redes de Segurança/organização & administração , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Aspirina/administração & dosagem , Centros Comunitários de Saúde/normas , Complicações do Diabetes/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Humanos , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Provedores de Redes de Segurança/normas , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The recent growth of implementation research in care delivery systems has led to a renewed interest in methodological approaches that deliver not only intervention outcome data but also deep understanding of the complex dynamics underlying the implementation process. We suggest that an ethnographic approach to process evaluation, when informed by and integrated with quantitative data, can provide this nuanced insight into intervention outcomes. The specific methods used in such ethnographic process evaluations are rarely presented in detail; our objective is to stimulate a conversation around the successes and challenges of specific data collection methods in health care settings. We use the example of a translational clinical trial among 11 community clinics in Portland, OR that are implementing an evidence-based, health-information technology (HIT)-based intervention focused on patients with diabetes. DISCUSSION: Our ethnographic process evaluation employed weekly diaries by clinic-based study employees, observation, informal and formal interviews, document review, surveys, and group discussions to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation success, provide insight into the quantitative study outcomes, and uncover lessons potentially transferable to other implementation projects. These methods captured the depth and breadth of factors contributing to intervention uptake, while minimizing disruption to clinic work and supporting mid-stream shifts in implementation strategies. A major challenge is the amount of dedicated researcher time required. The deep understanding of the 'how' and 'why' behind intervention outcomes that can be gained through an ethnographic approach improves the credibility and transferability of study findings. We encourage others to share their own experiences with ethnography in implementation evaluation and health services research, and to consider adapting the methods and tools described here for their own research.