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.

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 .

The ED-PACT Tool Initiative: Communicating Veterans' Care Needs After Emergency Department Visits.

BACKGROUND: Communication failures between providers threaten patient safety. PURPOSE: We developed, implemented, and formatively evaluated the ED-PACT Tool, which uses the Veterans Health Administration's (VA) electronic health record to send messages from emergency department (ED) providers to primary care patient-aligned care team (PACT) registered nurses (RNs) for Veterans discharged home from the ED with urgent or specific follow-up needs. METHODS: We used Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement methodology. RESULTS: Between November 1, 2015, and November 30, 2017, the tool was used to send 4,899 messages in one local VA healthcare system (ED and associated primary care clinics). Formative evaluation revealed that providers and RNs perceive the tool as providing substantial benefit for coordinating post-ED care. Patient-aligned care team leaders reported that RN training and "buy-in" facilitated tool implementation, while insufficient staffing posed a barrier. Emergency department providers noted the advantage of having a standardized and reliable system for communicating with PACTs. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The ED-PACT Tool encapsulates several best practices (standardized processes, "closed-loop" communication, embedding into workflow) to facilitate communication between VA ED and follow-up care providers. Our development process illustrates key lessons in quality improvement and innovation implementation including the value of using rapid-cycle improvement methodology, with interprofessional collaboration and representatives from intended spread sites.

Staff Perspectives on Primary Care Teams as De Facto "Hubs" for Care Coordination in VA: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Improving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed. OBJECTIVE: To identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems. INTERVENTIONS: This paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings. APPROACH: We conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers. KEY RESULTS: PACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs. CONCLUSION: In the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals.

Barriers to Follow-up Colonoscopies for Patients With Positive Results From Fecal Immunochemical Tests During Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer is common yet largely preventable. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a highly recommended screening method, but patients with positive results must receive a follow-up colonoscopy to determine if they have precancerous or cancerous lesions. We characterized colonoscopic follow-up evaluations and reasons for lack of follow-up in a Veterans Affairs (VA) cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients 50 to 75 years old with a positive FIT result from January 1, 2014, through May 31, 2016, in a network of 12 VAs sites in southern California. We determined the proportion of patients who received a follow-up colonoscopy, median time to colonoscopy, and colonoscopy findings. For patients who did not undergo colonoscopy, we determined the documented reason for lack of colonoscopy and factors associated with declining the colonoscopy examination. RESULTS: Of the 10,635 FITs performed, 916 (8.6%) produced positive results; 569 of these (62.1%) were followed by colonoscopy. The median time to colonoscopy after a positive FIT result was 83 days (interquartile range, 54-145 d), which did not vary between veterans who received a colonoscopy at a VA facility (81 d; interquartile range, 52-143 d) vs a non-VA site (87 d; interquartile range, 60-154 d) (P = .2). For the 347 veterans (37.9%) who did not undergo follow-up colonoscopy, the reasons were patient-related (49.3%), provider-related (16.4%), system-related (12.1%), or multifactorial (22.2%). Overall, patient decline of colonoscopy (35.2%) was the most common reason. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of veterans with positive results from FITs during CRC screening, reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy varied and included patient, provider, and system factors. These findings can be used to reduce barriers to follow-up colonoscopy and to address system-level challenges in scheduling and attrition for colonoscopy.