Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

BACKGROUND: Health services research can benefit from frontline clinician input across all stages of research, yet their key perspectives are often not meaningfully engaged. OBJECTIVE: How can we improve clinician engagement in research? DESIGN: Convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews followed by descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach, followed by group participatory listening sessions with interviewees to further contextualize findings. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one multidisciplinary clinicians from one healthcare system. KEY RESULTS: We identified two major themes: perceptions of research (how research fits within job role) and characterizing effective engagement (what works and what does not work in frontline clinician engagement). "Perceptions of Research" encompassed three subthemes: prior research experience; desired degree of engagement; and benefits to clinicians engaging in research. "Characterizing Effective Engagement" had these subthemes: engagement barriers; engagement facilitators; and impact of clinician's racial identity. CONCLUSIONS: Investing in frontline clinicians as research collaborators is beneficial to clinicians themselves, the health systems that employ them, and those for which they care. Yet, there are multiple barriers to meaningful engagement.

Diffusion of excellence: evaluating a system to identify, replicate, and spread promising innovative practices across the Veterans health administration.

Introduction: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program provides a system to identify, replicate, and spread promising practices across the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. DoE identifies innovations that have been successfully implemented in the VHA through a Shark Tank style competition. VHA facility and regional directors bid resources needed to replicate promising practices. Winning facilities/regions receive external facilitation to aid in replication/implementation over the course of a year. DoE staff then support diffusion of successful practices across the nationwide VHA. Methods: Organized around the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework, we summarize results of an ongoing long-term mixed-methods implementation evaluation of DoE. Data sources include: Shark Tank application and bid details, tracking practice adoptions through a Diffusion Marketplace, characteristics of VHA facilities, focus groups with Shark Tank bidders, structured observations of DoE events, surveys of DoE program participants, and semi-structured interviews of national VHA program office leaders, VHA healthcare system/facility executives, practice developers, implementation teams and facilitators. Results: In the first eight Shark Tanks (2016-2022), 3,280 Shark Tank applications were submitted; 88 were designated DoE Promising Practices (i.e., practices receive facilitated replication). DoE has effectively spread practices across the VHA, with 1,440 documented instances of adoption/replication of practices across the VHA. This includes 180 adoptions/replications in facilities located in rural areas. Leadership decisions to adopt innovations are often based on big picture considerations such as constituency support and linkage to organizational goals. DoE Promising Practices that have the greatest national spread have been successfully replicated at new sites during the facilitated replication process, have close partnerships with VHA national program offices, and tend to be less expensive to implement. Two indicators of sustainment indicate that 56 of the 88 Promising Practices are still being diffused across the VHA; 56% of facilities originally replicating the practices have sustained them, even up to 6 years after the first Shark Tank. Conclusion: DoE has developed a sustainable process for the identification, replication, and spread of promising practices as part of a learning health system committed to providing equitable access to high quality care.

Balancing reality in embedded research and evaluation: Low vs high embeddedness.

Embedding research and evaluation into organizations is one way to generate "practice-based" evidence needed to accelerate implementation of evidence-based innovations within learning health systems. Organizations and researchers/evaluators vary greatly in how they structure and operationalize these collaborations. One key aspect is the degree of embeddedness: from low embeddedness where researchers/evaluators are located outside organizations (eg, outside evaluation consultants) to high embeddedness where researchers/evaluators are employed by organizations and thus more deeply involved in program evolution and operations. Pros and cons related to the degree of embeddedness (low vs high) must be balanced when developing these relationships. We reflect on this process within the context of an embedded, mixed-methods evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program. Considerations that must be balanced include: (a) low vs high alignment of goals; (b) low vs high involvement in strategic planning; (c) observing what is happening vs being integrally involved with programmatic activities; (d) reporting findings at the project's end vs providing iterative findings and recommendations that contribute to program evolution; and (e) adhering to predetermined aims vs adapting aims in response to evolving partner needs.

Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: Qualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately "coded" notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor. RESULTS: Cohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches. CONCLUSION: Our rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Innovators Network: Evaluation design, methods and lessons learned through an embedded research approach.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between researchers, implementers and policymakers improves uptake of health systems research. In 2018, researchers and VHA Innovators Network (iNET) leadership used an embedded research model to conduct an evaluation of iNET. We describe our evaluation design, early results, and lessons learned. METHODS: This mixed-methods evaluation incorporated primary data collection via electronic survey, descriptive analysis using existing VA datasets (examining associations between facility characteristics and iNET participation), and qualitative interviews to support real-time program implementation and to probe perceived impacts, benefits and challenges of participation. RESULTS: We developed reporting tools and collected data regarding site participation, providing iNET leadership rapid access to needed information on projects (e.g., target populations reached, milestones achieved, and barriers encountered). Secondary data analyses indicated iNET membership was greater among larger, more complex VA facilities. Of the 37 iNET member sites, over half (n = 22) did not have any of the six major types of VA research centers; thus iNET is supporting VA sites not traditionally served by research innovation pathways. Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced engagement and perceived value of social and informational networks. CONCLUSIONS: Working alongside our iNET partners, we supported and influenced iNET's development through our embedded evaluation's preliminary findings. We also provided training and guidance aimed at building capacity among iNET participants. IMPLICATIONS: Embedded research can yield successful collaborative efforts between researchers and partners. An embedded research team can help programs pivot to ensure effective use of limited resources. Such models inform program development and expansion, supporting strategic planning and demonstrating value.

Merging Implementation Practice and Science to Scale Up Promising Practices: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) Program.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program developed and manages a framework for identification, replication, and diffusion of promising practices throughout the nation's largest integrated health care system. DoE identifies promising practices through a "Shark Tank" competition with winning bidders receiving external implementation facilitation. DoE further supports diffusion of successful practices across the VHA. METHODS: This article presents results of a mixed methods implementation evaluation of DoE, focusing on program reach, program participation and decisions to adopt innovative practices, implementation processes, and practice sustainment. Data sources include practice adoption metrics, focus groups with bidders (two focus groups), observations of DoE events (seven events), surveys of stakeholders (five separate surveys), and semistructured interviews of facility directors, practice developers, implementation teams, and facilitators (133 participants). RESULTS: In the first four Shark Tank cohorts (2016-2018), 1,676 practices were submitted; 47 were designated Gold Status Practices (practices with facilitated implementation). Motivation for participation varied. Generally, staff led projects targeting problems they felt passionate about, facility directors focused on big-picture quality metrics and getting middle manager support, and frontline staff displayed variable motivation to implement new projects. Approximately half of facilitated implementation efforts were successful; barriers included insufficient infrastructure, staff, and resources. At the facility level, 73.3% of facilities originating or receiving facilitated implementation support have maintained the practice. VHA-wide, 834 decisions to adopt these practices were made. CONCLUSION: DoE has resulted in the identification of many candidate practices, promoted adoption of promising practices by facility directors, and supported practice implementation and diffusion across the VHA.

Utilization and Costs by Primary Care Provider Type: Are There Differences Among Diabetic Patients of Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs among diabetes patients with physician, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA) primary care providers (PCPs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cohort study using Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record data to examine the relationship between PCP type and utilization and costs over 1 year in 368,481 adult, diabetes patients. Relationship between PCP type and utilization and costs in 2013 was examined with extensive adjustment for patient and facility characteristics. Emergency department and outpatient analyses used negative binomial models; hospitalizations used logistic regression. Costs were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: PCPs were physicians, NPs, and PAs for 74.9% (n=276,009), 18.2% (n=67,120), and 6.9% (n=25,352) of patients respectively. Patients of NPs and PAs have lower odds of inpatient admission [odds ratio for NP vs. physician 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.87-0.93; PA vs. physician 0.92, 95% CI=0.87-0.97], and lower emergency department use (0.67 visits on average for physicians, 95% CI=0.65-0.68; 0.60 for NPs, 95% CI=0.58-0.63; 0.59 for PAs, 95% CI=0.56-0.63). This translates into NPs and PAs having ~$500-$700 less health care costs per patient per year (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Expanded use of NPs and PAs in the PCP role for some patients may be associated with notable cost savings. In our cohort, substituting care patterns and creating similar clinical situations in which they practice, NPs and PAs may have reduced costs of care by up to 150-190 million dollars in 2013.

Impact Of Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, And Physician Assistants On Utilization And Costs For Complex Patients.

Because of workforce needs and demographic and chronic disease trends, nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are taking a larger role in the primary care of medically complex patients with chronic conditions. Research shows good quality outcomes, but concerns persist that NPs' and PAs' care of vulnerable populations could increase care costs compared to the traditional physician-dominated system. We used 2012-13 Veterans Affairs data on a cohort of medically complex patients with diabetes to compare health services use and costs depending on whether the primary care provider was a physician, NP, or PA. Case-mix-adjusted total care costs were 6-7 percent lower for NP and PA patients than for physician patients, driven by more use of emergency and inpatient services by the latter. We found that use of NPs and PAs as primary care providers for complex patients with diabetes was associated with less use of acute care services and lower total costs.

Intermediate Diabetes Outcomes in Patients Managed by Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, or Physician Assistants: A Cohort Study.

Background: Primary care provided by nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) has been proposed as a solution to expected workforce shortages. Objective: To examine potential differences in intermediate diabetes outcomes among patients of physician, NP, and PA primary care providers (PCPs). Design: Cohort study using data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record. Setting: 568 VA primary care facilities. Patients: 368 481 adult patients with diabetes treated pharmaceutically. Measurements: The relationship between the profession of the PCP (the provider the patient visited most often in 2012) and both continuous and dichotomous control of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was examined on the basis of the mean of measurements in 2013. Inverse probability of PCP type was used to balance cohort characteristics. Hierarchical linear mixed models and logistic regression models were used to analyze continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Results: The PCPs were physicians (n = 3487), NPs (n = 1445), and PAs (n = 443) for 74.9%, 18.2%, and 6.9% of patients, respectively. The difference in HbA1c values compared with physicians was -0.05% (95% CI, -0.07% to -0.02%) for NPs and 0.01% (CI, -0.02% to 0.04%) for PAs. For SBP, the difference was -0.08 mm Hg (CI, -0.34 to 0.18 mm Hg) for NPs and 0.02 mm Hg (CI, -0.42 to 0.38 mm Hg) for PAs. For LDL-C, the difference was 0.01 mmol/L (CI, 0.00 to 0.03 mmol/L) (0.57 mg/dL [CI, 0.03 to 1.11 mg/dL]) for NPs and 0.03 mmol/L (CI, 0.01 to 0.05 mmol/L) (1.08 mg/dL [CI, 0.25 to 1.91 mg/dL]) for PAs. None of these differences were clinically significant. Limitation: Most VA patients are men who receive treatment in a staff-model health care system. Conclusion: No clinically significant variation was found among the 3 PCP types with regard to diabetes outcomes, suggesting that similar chronic illness outcomes may be achieved by physicians, NPs, and PAs. Primary Funding Source: VA Health Services Research and Development.

Implementing Integrated Mental Health and Chaplain Care in a National Quality Improvement Initiative.

This column describes the development, implementation, and outcomes of a quality improvement learning collaborative that aimed to better integrate chaplaincy with mental health care services at 14 participating health care facilities evenly distributed across the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense. Teams of health care chaplains and mental health professionals from participating sites sought to improve cross-disciplinary service integration in six key domains: screening, referrals, assessment, communication and documentation, cross-disciplinary training, and role clarification. Chaplains and mental health providers across all facilities at participating sites were significantly more likely post-collaboration to report having a clear understanding of how to collaborate and to report using a routine process for screening patients who could benefit from seeing a professional from the other discipline. Foundational efforts to enhance cross-disciplinary awareness and screening practices between chaplains and mental health professionals appear particularly promising.

Building Capacity in a Rural North Carolina Community to Address Prostate Health Using a Lay Health Advisor Model.

Background Prostate cancer is a critical concern for African Americans in North Carolina (NC), and innovative strategies are needed to help rural African American men maximize their prostate health. Engaging the community in research affords opportunities to build capacity for teaching and raising awareness. Approach and Strategies A community steering committee of academicians, community partners, religious leaders, and other stakeholders modified a curriculum on prostate health and screening to include interactive knowledge- and skill-building activities. This curriculum was then used to train 15 African American lay health advisors, dubbed Prostate Cancer Ambassadors, in a rural NC community. Over the 2-day training, Ambassadors achieved statistically significant improvements in knowledge of prostate health and maintained confidence in teaching. The Ambassadors, in turn, used their personal networks to share their knowledge with over 1,000 individuals in their community. Finally, the Ambassadors became researchers, implementing a prostate health survey in local churches. Discussion and Conclusions It is feasible to use community engagement models for raising awareness of prostate health in NC African American communities. Mobilizing community coalitions to develop curricula ensures that the curricula meet the communities' needs, and training lay health advisors to deliver curricula helps secure community buy-in for the information.