Mapping the organizational readiness to change assessment to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: Implementation researchers recognize the influential role of organizational factors and, thus, seek to assess these factors using quantitative measurement instruments. However, researchers are hindered by instruments that measure similar constructs but rely on different nomenclature and/or definitions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) provides a taxonomy of constructs derived from prior frameworks and empirical studies of implementation-related constructs. The CFIR includes constructs based on the original Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework which highlights the key roles of strength of evidence for a specific evidence-based intervention (EBI), favorability of organizational context for change, and capacities to facilitate implementation of the EBI. Although the CFIR is among the most frequently used implementation frameworks, it does not include quantitative measures. The Organizational Resource and Context Assessment (ORCA) is a quantitative measurement instrument that was developed based on PARiHS, assessing its three domains. Factors within these three domains are conceptually similar to constructs in the CFIR but do not match directly. The aim of this work was to map ORCA survey items to CFIR constructs to enable direct comparisons and syntheses of findings across studies using the CFIR and/or ORCA. METHODS: Two distinct, independent research teams, each used rigorous constant comparative techniques with deliberation and consensus to map individual items from the ORCA to the five domains and 39 constructs of CFIR. RESULTS: ORCA items were mapped primarily to three of five CFIR domains: Inner Setting, Process, and Intervention Characteristics. The two research teams agreed on 88% of mappings at the higher domain level; at the lower construct level, their mappings aligned for 62.2% of the ORCA items. CONCLUSIONS: Mapping results reveal that the ORCA focuses measurement prominently on Inner Setting, Process, and Intervention Characteristics. This mapping guide can help improve consistency in measurement and reporting, enabling more efficient comparison and synthesis of findings that use either the ORCA instrument or the CFIR framework. The guide helps advance implementation science utilizing mixed methods by providing CFIR users with quantitative measures for selected constructs and enables ORCA users to map their findings to CFIR constructs.

Scaling Beyond Early Adopters: a Content Analysis of Literature and Key Informant Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Innovations and improvements in care delivery are often not spread across all settings that would benefit from their uptake. Scale-up and spread efforts are deliberate efforts to increase the impact of innovations successfully tested in pilot projects so as to benefit more people. The final stages of scale-up and spread initiatives must contend with reaching hard-to-engage sites. OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of scale-up and spread initiatives, with a focus on hard-to-engage sites and strategies to approach them. DESIGN: Qualitative content analysis of systematically identified literature and key informant interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Leads from large magnitude scale-up and spread projects. APPROACH: We conducted a systematic literature search on large magnitude scale-up and spread and interviews with eight project leads, who shared their perspectives on strategies to scale-up and spread clinical and administrative practices across healthcare systems, focusing on hard-to-engage sites. We synthesized these data using content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Searches identified 1919 titles, of which 52 articles were included. Thirty-four discussed general scale-up and spread strategies, 11 described hard-to-engage sites, and 7 discussed strategies for hard-to-engage sites. These included publications were combined with interview findings to describe a fourth phase of the national scale-up and spread process, common challenges for spreading to hard-to-engage sites, and potential benefits of working with hard-to-engage sites, as well as useful strategies for working with hard-to-engage sites. CONCLUSIONS: We identified scant published evidence that describes strategies for reaching hard-to-engage sites. The sparse data we identified aligned with key informant accounts. Future work could focus on better documentation of the later stages of spread efforts, including specific tailoring of approaches and strategies used with hard-to-engage sites. Spread efforts should include a "flexible, tailored approach" for this highly variable group, especially as implementation science is looking to expand its impact in routine care settings.

Use of the consolidated framework for implementation research to guide dissemination and implementation of new technologies in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Improving surgical outcomes is important to patients, providers, and healthcare systems. Understanding best methods to ensure evidence based practices are successfully implemented and sustained in clinical practices leads to improved care. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science facilitates the successful pathway from clinical trials to sustained implementation. METHODS: We describe D&I science, introduce the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR), a D&I framework, and provide an example of how CFIR was utilized to facilitate the translational process from design adaptations to implementation, broad utilization by clinicians, and sustainability of the SUrgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) tool into regular clinical practice. SURPAS creates data-driven individualized risk assessments of common adverse postoperative outcomes to enhance the informed consent process, shared decision making, and consequently improved surgical outcomes. The CFIR provided a structured systematic way to identify constructs influencing the D&I of SURPAS, including adaptations for the process and tool. RESULTS: We identified three domains, each with specific constructs, that participants believed would strongly influence effectiveness of SURPAS implementation efforts: the importance of patients' perspectives (outer setting); the quality of SURPAS (intervention characteristic); and integration of SURPAS into the electronic health record (inner setting). Additionally, providers' positive attitudes toward and support of SURPAS (characteristics of individuals); and the ease of integration of SURPAS into the workflow (process), were also identified. Tension emerged between patients' preference of the provision of risk information and providers' concern about additional clinic time required for formal risk discussion with low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically identifying constructs from the beginning of the design through the implementation process can guide design of a multi-component strategy for future large-scale implementation by assessing the relative impact of factors on implementation using the CFIR framework. In the example studied, this allows key stakeholders to ensure success of D&I of SURPAS at multiple levels and times, continuously optimizing the process.

Adaptation of Lean Six Sigma Methodologies for the Evaluation of Veterans Choice Program at 3 Urban Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is adapting to meet the changing needs of our Veterans. VHA leaders are promoting quality improvement strategies including Lean Six Sigma (LSS). This study used LSS tools to evaluate the Veterans Choice Program (VCP), a program that aims to improve access to health care services for eligible Veterans by expanding health care options to non-VHA providers. RESEARCH DESIGN: LSS was utilized to assess the current process and efficiency patterns of the VCP at 3 VHA Medical Centers. LSS techniques were used to assess data obtained through semistructured interviews with Veterans, staff, and providers to describe and evaluate the VCP process by identifying wastes and defects. RESULTS: The LSS methodology facilitated the process of targeting priorities for improvement and constructing suggestions to close identified gaps and inefficiencies. Identified key process wastes included inefficient exchange of clinical information between stakeholders in and outside of the VHA; poor dissemination of VCP programmatic information; shortages of VCP-participating providers; duplication of appointments; declines in care coordination; and lack of program adaptability to local processes. Recommendations for improvement were formulated using LSS. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation illustrates how LSS can be utilized to assess a nationally mandated health care program. By focusing on stakeholder, staff, and Veteran perspectives, process defects in the VCP were identified and improvement recommendations were made. However, the current LSS language used is not intuitive in health care and similar applications of LSS may consider using new language and goals adapted specifically for health care.

Cognitive dysfunction and poor health literacy are common in veterans presenting with acute coronary syndrome: insights from the MEDICATION study.

BACKGROUND: Patient nonadherence to cardiac medications following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is associated with increased risk of recurrent events. However, the prevalence of cognitive dysfunction and poor health literacy among ACS patients and their association with medication nonadherence are poorly understood. METHODS: We assessed rates of cognitive dysfunction and poor health literacy among participants of a clinical trial that tested the effectiveness of an intervention to improve medication adherence in patients hospitalized with ACS. Of 254 patients, 249 completed the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine, Revised (REALM-R) survey, an assessment of risk for poor literacy, and the St Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam, a tool assessing for neurocognitive deficits, during ACS hospitalization. We assessed if SLUMS or REALM-R scores were associated with medication adherence. RESULTS: Based on SLUMS score, 14% of patients were categorized as having dementia, and 52% with mild neurocognitive disorder (MNCD). Based on REALM-R score of ≤6, 34% of patients were categorized as at risk for poor health literacy. There was no association between poor health literacy and medication nonadherence. Of those with MNCD, 35.5% were nonadherent, compared to 17.5% with normal cognitive function and 6.7% with dementia. In multivariable analysis, cognitive dysfunction was associated with medication nonadherence (P=0.007), mainly due to an association between MNCD and nonadherence (odds ratio =12.2, 95% confidence interval =1.9 to 243; P=0.007). Cognitive status was not associated with adherence in patients randomized to the intervention. CONCLUSION: Cognitive dysfunction and risk for poor health literacy are common in patients hospitalized with ACS. We found an association between MNCD and medication nonadherence in the usual care group but not in the intervention group. These findings suggest efforts to screen for MNCD are needed during ACS hospitalization to identify patients at risk for nonadherence and who may benefit from an adherence intervention.

Variability of antithrombotic dosing among veterans presenting with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients is recommended by clinical practice guidelines. Appropriate dosing of antithrombotic therapy is necessary to ensure effectiveness and safety and is an American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ST elevated myocardial infarction/non-ST elevated myocardial infarction performance measure. This study describes the variability in dosing of unfractionated heparin (UH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in an integrated health care system with electronic medical records and computerized physician order entry (CPOE). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a mixed-methods study of veterans presenting with ACS at 135 Veterans Health Administration hospitals from 2009 to 2011. Patients hospitalized with ACS and received antithrombotic therapy were included (n=36 682). The cohort was 98% male with an average age of 66 years and median body mass index (BMI) of 28.6. The average percentage of patients by hospital who received an above-recommended dose of either antithrombotic was 7.5% and ranged 0% to 32.0%. By individual therapy, the average percentage of patients by hospital who received an above-recommended dose of UH was 1.2% and LMWH was 12.9%. Risk-adjusted analyses demonstrated that older age and higher BMI were associated with lower risk for receiving a dose above recommended levels. Additionally, there was an association between antithrombotic ordered by a resident and higher risk of the patient receiving an above-recommended dose. Qualitative interviews supported the quantitative findings by highlighting the need to use current patient weight and the need to adequately train providers on the use of CPOE to improve antithrombotic dosing. CONCLUSION: This study found wide hospital variability in dosing of antithrombotics above the recommended level for patients treated for ACS.

A multimodal blood pressure control intervention in 3 healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a multimodal intervention composed of patient education, home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, BP measurement reporting to an interactive voice response (IVR) phone system, and clinical pharmacist follow-up improves BP control compared with usual care. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study with patient enrollment, medication consultation and adjustment, remote BP monitoring, and follow-up at 6 months. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at 3 healthcare systems in Denver, Colorado, including a large health maintenance organization, a Veterans Affairs medical center, and a county hospital. At each site, patients with uncontrolled BP were randomized to the multimodal intervention vs usual care for 6 months, with the primary end point of BP reduction. RESULTS: Of 338 patients randomized, 283 (84%) completed the study, including 138 intervention patients and 145 usual care patients. Baseline BP was higher in the intervention group vs the usual care group (150.5/89.4 vs 143.8/85.3 mm Hg). At 6 months, BPs were similar in the intervention group vs the usual care group (137.4 vs 136.7 mm Hg, P = .85 for systolic; 82.9 vs 81.1 mm Hg, P = .14 for diastolic). However, BP reductions were greater in the intervention group vs the usual care group (−13.1 vs −7.1 mm Hg, P = .006 for systolic; −6.5 vs −4.2 mm Hg, P = .07 for diastolic). Adherence to medications was similar between the 2 groups, but intervention patients had a greater increase in medication regimen intensity. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal intervention of patient education, home BP monitoring, BP measurement reporting to an IVR system, and clinical pharmacist follow-up achieved greater reductions in BP compared with usual care.