The Tennessee Heart Health Network effectiveness study: A stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of statewide quality improvement cooperative participation on cardiovascular outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the United States and Tennessee ranks among the highest in CVD events. While patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) evidence-based approaches that reach beyond the traditional doctor-patient visit hold promise to improve CVD care and prevent serious complications, most primary care providers lack time, knowledge, and infrastructure to implement these proven approaches. Statewide primary care quality improvement (QI) collaboratives hold potential to help address primary care needs, however, little is known regarding their effectiveness in improving uptake of PCOR evidence-based population health approaches and improving CVD outcomes. This study describes the design and implementation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of participation in a statewide quality improvement cooperative (The Tennessee Heart Health Network [TN-HHN]) on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The TN-HHN Effectiveness Study randomized 77 practices to 4 waves (i.e., clusters), with each wave beginning three months after the start of the prior wave and lasting for 18 months. All practice clusters received one of three Network interventions, and outcomes are measured for each three months both in the control phase and the intervention phase. Primary outcomes include Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures for aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol control, and smoking cessation (ABCS). CONCLUSIONS: This trial, upon its conclusion, will allow us to assess the effect of participation in a statewide quality improvement cooperative on cardiovascular outcomes as well as key contributors to successful practice transformation.

Application of the FRAME-IS to a multifaceted implementation strategy.

BACKGROUND: Research demonstrates the importance of documenting adaptations to implementation strategies that support integration of evidence-based interventions into practice. While studies have utilized the FRAME-IS [Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications for Implementation Strategies] to collect structured adaptation data, they are limited by a focus on discrete implementation strategies (e.g., training), which do not reflect the complexity of multifaceted strategies like practice facilitation. In this paper, we apply the FRAME-IS to our trial evaluating the effectiveness of PF on implementation fidelity of an evidence-based technology-facilitated team care model for improved hypertension control within a federally qualified health center (FQHC). METHODS: Three data sources are used to document adaptations: (1) implementation committee meeting minutes, (2) narrative reports completed by practice facilitators, and (3) structured notes captured on root cause analysis and Plan-Do-Study-Act worksheets. Text was extracted from the data sources according to the FRAME-IS modules and inputted into a master matrix for content analysis by two authors; a third author conducted member checking and code validation. RESULTS: We modified the FRAME-IS to include part 2 of module 2 (what is modified) to add greater detail of the modified strategy, and a numbering system to track adaptations across the modules. This resulted in identification of 27 adaptations, of which 88.9% focused on supporting practices in identifying eligible patients and referring them to the intervention. About half (52.9%) of the adaptations were made to modify the context of the PF strategy to include a group-based format, add community health workers to the strategy, and to shift the implementation target to nurses. The adaptations were often widespread (83.9%), affecting all practices within the FQHC. While most adaptations were reactive (84.6%), they resulted from a systematic process of reviewing data captured by multiple sources. All adaptations included the FQHC in the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: With modifications, we demonstrate the ability to document our adaptation data across the FRAME-IS modules, attesting to its applicability and value for a range of implementation strategies. Based on our experiences, we recommend refinement of tracking systems to support more nimble and practical documentation of iterative, ongoing, and multifaceted adaptations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03713515, Registration date: October 19, 2018.

Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation.

Background: Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource. Methods: We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with "facilitation" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection. Findings: The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software. Conclusion: We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

"Hypertension is such a difficult disease to manage": federally qualified health center staff- and leadership-perceived readiness to implement a technology-facilitated team-based hypertension model.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of hypertension care delivery in reducing morbidity and mortality, a majority of hypertension cases remain uncontrolled. There is an urgent need to elucidate and address multilevel facilitators and barriers clinical staff face in delivering evidence-based hypertension care, patients face in accessing it, and clinical systems face in sustaining it. Through a rigorous pre-implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators and barriers bearing the potential to affect the planned implementation of a multilevel technology-facilitated hypertension management trial across six primary care sites in a large federally qualified health center (FQHC) in New York City. METHODS: During a dedicated pre-implementation period (3-9 months/site, 2021-2022), a capacity assessment was conducted by trained practice facilitators, including (1) online anonymous surveys (n = 124; 70.5% of eligible), (2) hypertension training analytics (n = 69; 94.5% of assigned), and (3) audio-recorded semi-structured interviews (n = 67; 48.6% of eligible) with FQHC leadership and staff. Surveys measured staff sociodemographic characteristics, adaptive reserve, evidence-based practice attitudes, and implementation leadership scores via validated scales. Training analytics, derived from end-of-course quizzes, included mean score and number attempts needed to pass. Interviews assessed staff-reported facilitators and barriers to current hypertension care delivery and uptake; following audio transcription, trained qualitative researchers employed a deductive coding approach, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Most survey respondents reported moderate adaptive reserve (mean = 0.7, range = 0-1), evidence-based practice attitudes (mean = 2.7, range = 0-4), and implementation leadership (mean = 2.5, range = 0-4). Most staff passed training courses on first attempt and demonstrated high scores (means > 80%). Findings from interviews identified potential facilitators and barriers to implementation; specifically, staff reported that complex barriers to hypertension care, control, and clinical communication exist; there is a recognized need to improve hypertension care; in-clinic challenges with digital tool access imposes workflow delays; and despite high patient loads, staff are motivated to provide high-quality cares. CONCLUSIONS: This study serves as one of the first to apply the CFIR to a rigorous pre-implementation evaluation within the understudied context of a FQHC and can serve as a model for similar trials seeking to identify and address contextual factors known to impact implementation success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03713515 , date of registration: October 19, 2018.

Exemplar Hospital initiation trial to Enhance Treatment Engagement (EXHIT ENTRE): protocol for CTN-0098B a randomized implementation study to support hospitals in caring for patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations involving opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce mortality and acute care utilization. Hospitalization is a reachable moment for initiating MOUD and arranging for ongoing MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. Despite existing quality metrics for MOUD initiation and engagement, few hospitals provide hospital based opioid treatment (HBOT). This protocol describes a cluster-randomized hybrid type-2 implementation study comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation support strategies to help community hospitals implement HBOT. METHODS: Four state implementation hubs with expertise in initiating HBOT programs will provide implementation support to 24 community hospitals (6 hospitals/hub) interested in starting HBOT. Community hospitals will be randomized to 24-months of either a low-intensity intervention (distribution of an HBOT best-practice manual, a lecture series based on the manual, referral to publicly available resources, and on-demand technical assistance) or a high-intensity intervention (the low-intensity intervention plus funding for a hospital HBOT champion and regular practice facilitation sessions with an expert hub). The primary efficacy outcome, adapted from the National Committee on Quality Assurance, is the proportion of patients engaged in MOUD 34-days following hospital discharge. Secondary and exploratory outcomes include acute care utilization, non-fatal overdose, death, MOUD engagement at various time points, hospital length of stay, and discharges against medical advice. Primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes will be derived from state Medicaid data. Implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators are assessed via longitudinal surveys, qualitative interviews, practice facilitation contact logs, and HBOT sustainability metrics. We hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving care at hospitals randomized to the high-intensity arm will have greater MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: Initiation of MOUD during hospitalization improves MOUD engagement post hospitalization. Few studies, however, have tested different implementation strategies on HBOT uptake, outcome, and sustainability and only one to date has tested implementation of a specific type of HBOT (addiction consultation services). This cluster-randomized study comparing different intensities of HBOT implementation support will inform hospitals and policymakers in identifying effective strategies for promoting HBOT dissemination and adoption in community hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04921787.

An age-friendly approach to primary care in an academic health system.

BACKGROUND: Age-friendly care, addressing what matters most, medications, mentation, and mobility, is a successful model for improving older adult care. We describe the initial outcomes of age-friendly care implementation in five primary care clinics in an academic health system. METHODS: In partnership with a regional quality improvement (QI) organization, we used practice facilitation to implement age-friendly care from July 2020 to June 2023. Clinic workflows and electronic health record (EHR) templates were modified to capture six QI measures for patients ≥65 years: Documenting what matters most to patients Advance care planning (ACP) Annual cognitive screening Caregiver referral to dementia community resources Fall-risk screening Co-prescription of opioid and sedative-hypnotic drugs Providers were alerted if patients had positive screens and given support tools for clinical decision-making. QI measures from January-June 2023 were compared to the year prior to implementation. Providers and staff were interviewed about implementation barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: All six measures improved in Geriatrics and and other clinics showed improvement in ACP and cognitive screening. All clinics had high fall-risk screening rates (≥85%). The least improved measure was co-prescription of opioids and sedative-hypnotics with co-prescription rates ranging from 7% to 39%. Implementation hinged on leadership prioritization, practice facilitator guidance, clinical team buy-in, EHR functionality, and clinical performance review. Three clinics received Age-Friendly Health System recognition. CONCLUSIONS: A QI approach using practice facilitation and EHR templates improved some but not all age-friendly care measures. Future interventions will focus on training in high-risk medication tapering and elicitation of health goals.

What AHRQ Learned While Working to Transform Primary Care.

Building on previous efforts to transform primary care, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in 2015. This 3-year initiative provided external quality improvement support to small and medium-size primary care practices to implement evidence-based cardiovascular care. Despite challenges, results from an independent national evaluation demonstrated that the EvidenceNOW model successfully boosted the capacity of primary care practices to improve quality of care, while helping to advance heart health. Reflecting on AHRQ's own learnings as the funder of this work, 3 key lessons emerged: (1) there will always be surprises that will require flexibility and real-time adaptation; (2) primary care transformation is about more than technology; and (3) it takes time and experience to improve care delivery and health outcomes. EvidenceNOW taught us that lasting practice transformation efforts need to be responsive to anticipated and unanticipated changes, relationship-oriented, and not tied to a specific disease or initiative. We believe these lessons argue for a national primary care extension service that provides ongoing support for practice transformation.

Improving Guideline-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC): Implementing a Patient Navigation and Practice Facilitation Intervention to Promote Health Equity.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in the prevention and early detection of cancer. Implementing evidence-based screening guidelines remains a challenge, especially in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), where current rates (43%) are lower than national goals (80%), and even lower in populations with limited English proficiency (LEP) who experience increased barriers to care related to systemic inequities. METHODS: This quality improvement (QI) initiative began in 2016, focused on utilizing patient navigation and practice facilitation to addressing systemic inequities and barriers to care to increase CRC screening rates at an urban FQHC, with two clinical locations (the intervention and control sites) serving a diverse population through culturally tailored education and navigation. RESULTS: Between August 2016 and December 2018, CRC screening rates increased significantly from 31% to 59% at the intervention site (p < 0.001), with the most notable change in patients with LEP. Since 2018 through December 2022, navigation and practice facilitation expanded to all clinics, and the overall CRC screening rates continued to increase from 43% to 50%, demonstrating the effectiveness of patient navigation to address systemic inequities. CONCLUSIONS: This multilevel intervention addressed structural inequities and barriers to care by implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice, and combining patient navigation and practice facilitation to successfully increase the CRC screening rates at this FQHC.

Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend "best" practices for its use as an implementation strategy. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient's organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Application of the FRAME-IS to a Multifaceted Implementation Strategy.

Background: Research demonstrates the importance of documenting adaptations to implementation strategies that support integration of evidence-based interventions into practice. While studies have utilized the FRAME-IS [Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications for Implementation Strategies] to collect structured adaptation data, they are limited by a focus on discrete implementation strategies (e.g., training), which do not reflect the complexity of multifaceted strategies like practice facilitation (PF). In this paper, we apply the FRAME-IS to our trial evaluating the effectiveness of PF on implementation fidelity of an evidence-based technology-facilitated team care model for improved hypertension control within a federally qualified health center (FQHC). Methods: Three data sources are used to document adaptations: (1) implementation committee meeting minutes, (2) narrative reports completed by practice facilitators, and (3) structured notes captured on root cause analysis and Plan-Do-Study-Act worksheets. Text was extracted from the data sources according to the FRAME-IS modules and inputted into a master matrix for content analysis by two authors; a third author conducted member checking and code validation. Results: We modified the FRAME-IS to include part 2 of module 2 (what is modified) to add greater detail of the modified strategy, and a numbering system to track adaptations across the modules. This resulted in identification of 27 adaptations, of which 88.9% focused on supporting practices in identifying eligible patients and referring them to the intervention. About half (52.9%) of the adaptations were made to modify the context of the PF strategy to include a group-based format, add community health workers to the strategy, and to shift the implementation target to nurses. The adaptations were often widespread (83.9%), affecting all practices within the FQHC. While most adaptations were reactive (84.6%), they resulted from a systematic process of reviewing data captured by multiple sources. All adaptations included the FQHC in the decision-making process. Conclusion: With modifications, we demonstrate the ability to document our adaptation data across the FRAME-IS modules, attesting to its applicability and value for a range of implementation strategies. Based on our experiences, we recommend refinement of tracking systems to support more nimble and practical documentation of iterative, ongoing, and multifaceted adaptations. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03713515, Registration date: October 19, 2018.

Perspectives of clinical stakeholders and patients from four VA liver clinics to tailor practice facilitation for implementing evidence-based alcohol-related care.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is particularly dangerous for people with chronic liver disease. Liver clinics may be an important setting in which to provide effective alcohol-related care by integrating evidence-based strategies, such as brief intervention and medications for alcohol use disorder. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinical stakeholders and patients at liver clinics in four Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers to understand barriers and facilitators of integrating alcohol-related care and to support tailoring of a practice facilitation implementation intervention. METHODS: Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the CFIR. RESULTS: We interviewed 46 clinical stakeholders and 41 patient participants and analyzed findings based on the CFIR. Clinical stakeholders described barriers and facilitators that ranged from operations/clinic resource-based (e.g., time and capacity, desire for additional provider types, referral processes) to individual perspective and preference-based (e.g., supportiveness of leadership, individual experiences/beliefs). Patient participants shared barriers and facilitators that ranged from relationship-based (e.g., trusting the provider and feeling judged) to resource and education-based (e.g., connection to a range of treatment options, education about impact of alcohol). Many barriers and facilitators to integrating alcohol-related care in liver clinics were similar to those identified in other clinical settings (e.g., time, resources, role clarity, stigmatizing beliefs). However, some barriers (e.g., fellow-led care and lack of integration of liver clinics with addictions specialists) and facilitators (e.g., presence of quality improvement staff in clinics and integrated pharmacists and behavioral health specialists) were more unique to liver clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the possibility of integrating alcohol-related care into liver clinics but highlight the importance of tailoring efforts to account for variation in provider beliefs and experiences and clinic resources. The barriers and facilitators identified in these interviews were used to tailor a practice facilitation implementation intervention in each clinic setting.

Practice Facilitation to Support Family Physicians in Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Multimethod Process Evaluation.

PURPOSE: We offered a practice facilitation intervention to family physicians in Ontario, Canada, known to have large numbers of patients not yet vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a multimethod process evaluation embedded within a randomized controlled trial (clinical trial #NCT05099497). We collected descriptive statistics regarding engagement and qualitative interview data from family physicians and practice facilitators, as well as data from facilitator field notes. We analyzed and triangulated the data using thematic analysis and mapped barriers to and enablers for implementation to structural, organizational, physician, and patient factors. RESULTS: Of the 300 approached, 90 family physicians (30%) accepted facilitation. Of these, 57% received technical support to identify unvaccinated patients, 29% used trained medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 30% used automated calling to reach patients. Key factors affecting engagement with the intervention were staff shortages owing to COVID-19 (structural), clinic characteristics such as technical issues and gatekeeping by staff, which prevented facilitators from talking with physicians (organizational), burnout (physician), and specialized populations that required targeted resources (patient). The facilitator's ability to address technical issues and connect family physicians with medical students helped with engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to help underresourced family physicians serving high-needs populations for issues of public health importance, such as vaccine promotion, must acknowledge the scarcity of physicians' time and provide new resources. To successfully engage family physicians, practice facilitators should seek to build trust and relationships over time, including with front-office staff.

Implementing practice facilitation in research: how facilitators spend their time guiding practices to improve blood pressure control.

BACKGROUND: Practice facilitators (PFs) coach practices through quality improvement (QI) initiatives aimed at enhancing patient outcomes and operational efficiencies. Practice facilitation is a dynamic intervention that, by design, is tailored to practices' unique needs and contexts. Little research has explored the amount of time PFs spend with practices on QI activities. This short report expands on previously published work that detailed a 12-month practice facilitation intervention as part of the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control (SEC) trial, which focused on improving hypertension control among people living in rural settings in the southeastern USA. This report analyzes data on the time PFs spent to guide 32 primary care practices in implementing QI activities to support enhanced outcomes in patients with high blood pressure. METHODS: The SEC trial employed four certified PFs across all practice sites, who documented time spent: (1) driving to support practices; (2) working on-site with staff and clinicians; and (3) communicating remotely (phone, email, or video conference) with practice members. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics to help understand time devoted to individual and aggregated tasks. Additionally, we explored correlations between practice characteristics and time spent with PFs. RESULTS: In aggregate, the PFs completed 416 visits to practices and spent an average of 130 (SD 65) min per visit driving to and from practices. The average time spent on-site per visit with practices was 87 (SD 37) min, while an average of 17 (SD 12) min was spent on individual remote communications. During the 12-month intervention, 1131 remote communications were conducted with practices. PFs spent most of their time with clinical staff members (n = 886 instances) or with practice managers alone (n = 670 instances) while relatively few on-site visits were conducted with primary care providers alone (n = 15). In 19 practices, no communications were solely with providers. No significant correlations were found between time spent on PF activities and a practices' percent of Medicaid and uninsured patients, staff-provider ratio, or federally qualified health center (FQHC) status. CONCLUSIONS: PFs working with practices serving rural patients with hypertension devote substantial time to driving, highlighting the importance of optimizing a balance between time spent on-site vs. communicating remotely. Most time spent was with clinical staff, not primary care providers. These findings may be useful to researchers and business leaders who design, test, and implement efficient facilitation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02866669 . Registered on 15 August 2016. NHLBI AWARD number: PCS-1UH3HL130691.

Facilitation of team-based care to improve HTN management and outcomes: a protocol for a randomized stepped wedge trial.

BACKGROUND: There are well-established guidelines for treating hypertension (HTN), yet only half of patients with HTN meet the defined target of < 140/90. Team-based care (TBC) is an evidence-based strategy for improving blood pressure (BP) management and control. TBC is defined as the provision of health services by at least two health professionals "who work collaboratively with patients and their caregivers to accomplish shared goals to achieve coordinated, high-quality care". However, primary care practices experience challenges to implementing TBC principles and care processes; these are more pronounced in small independent practice settings (SIPs). Practice facilitation (PF) is an implementation strategy that may overcome barriers to adopting evidence-based TBC to improve HTN management in SIPs. METHODS: Using a stepped wedge randomized controlled trial design, we will test the effect of PF on the adoption of TBC to improve HTN management in small practices (< 5 FTE clinicians) in New York City, and the impact on BP control compared with usual care. We will enroll 90 SIPs and randomize them into one of three 12-month intervention waves. Practice facilitators will support SIPs to adopt TBC principles to improve implementation of five HTN management strategies (i.e., panel management, population health, measuring BP, supporting medication adherence, self-management). The primary outcome is the adoption of TBC for HTN management measured at baseline and 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the rate of BP control and sustainability of TBC and BP outcomes at 18 months. Aggregated data on BP measures are collected every 6 months in all clusters so that each cluster provides data points in both the control and intervention conditions. Using a mixed methods approach, we will also explore factors that influence the effectiveness of PF at the organization and team level. DISCUSSION: This study will provide much-needed guidance on how to optimize adoption and sustainability of TBC in independent primary care settings to reduce the burden of disease related to suboptimal BP control and advance understanding of how facilitation works to improve implementation of evidence-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT05413252 .

The design and rationale of a multicenter real-world trial: The Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control in the US Black Belt - Addressing the Triple Threat.

BACKGROUND: Impoverished African Americans (AA) with hypertension face poor health outcomes. PURPOSE: To conduct a cluster-randomized trial testing two interventions, alone and in combination, to improve blood pressure (BP) control in AA with persistently uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: We engaged primary care practices serving rural Alabama and North Carolina residents, and in each practice we recruited approximately 25 AA adults with persistently uncontrolled hypertension (mean systolic BP >140 mmHg over the year prior to enrollment plus enrollment day BP assessed by research assistants ≥140/90 mmHg). Practices were randomized to peer coaching (PC), practice facilitation (PF), both PC and PF (PC + PF), or enhanced usual care (EUC). Coaches met with participants from PC and PC + PF practices weekly for 8 weeks then monthly over one year, discussing lifestyle changes, medication adherence, home monitoring, and communication with the healthcare team. Facilitators met with PF and PC + PF practices monthly to implement ≥1 quality improvement intervention in each of four domains. Data were collected at 0, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: We recruited 69 practices and 1596 participants; 18 practices (408 participants) were randomized to EUC, 16 (384 participants) to PF, 19 (424 participants) to PC, and 16 (380 participants) to PC + PF. Participants had mean age 57 years, 61% were women, and 56% reported annual income <$20,000. LIMITATIONS: The PF intervention acts at the practice level, possibly missing intervention effects in trial participants. Neither PC nor PF currently has established clinical reimbursement mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will fill evidence gaps regarding practice-level vs. patient-level interventions for rural impoverished AA with uncontrolled hypertension.

Recruitment and retention of primary care practices in the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control.

Background: Racial disparities related to hypertension prevalence and control persist, with Black persons continuing to have both high prevalence and suboptimal control. The Black Belt region of the US Southeast is characterized by multiple critical priority populations: rural, low-income, and minority (Black). Methods: In a cluster-randomized, controlled, pragmatic implementation trial, the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control evaluated two multi-component, multi-level functional interventions - peer coaching (PC) and practice facilitation (PF) (separately and combined) - as adjuncts to usual care to improve blood pressure control in the Black Belt. The overall goal was to randomize 80 primary care practices (later reduced to 69 practices) in Alabama and North Carolina to one of four interventions: 1) enhanced usual care (EUC); 2) EUC plus PC; 3) EUC plus PF; or 4) EUC plus both PC and PF. Several measures to facilitate recruitment and retention of practices were employed, including practice readiness assessment. Results: Contact was initiated with 248 practices during the study enrollment period. Of these, 99 declined participation, 39 were ineligible, and 41 were being evaluated for inclusion when the target number of practices was reached. The remaining 69 practices eventually were enrolled, with 18 practices randomized to EUC, 19 to PC, 16 to PF, and 16 to PC plus PF. Only two practices (2.9%) were withdrawn during the study. Several facilitators of and barriers to practice recruitment and retention were identified. Conclusion: Our findings underscore the importance of a structured approach to recruiting primary care practices in a pragmatic implementation trial.ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02866669.

Long-term effectiveness of a primary care practice facilitation program for chronic kidney disease management: an extended follow-up of a cluster-randomized FROM-J study.

BACKGROUND: Practice facilitation program by multidisciplinary care for primary care physicians (PCPs) is expected to improve chronic kidney disease (CKD) outcomes, but there is no clear evidence of its long-term effectiveness. We have previously performed a cluster-randomized controlled trial for 3.5 years (the Frontier of Renal Outcome Modifications in Japan (FROM-J) study) with two arms-group A without the program and group B with the program. We aimed to assess the long-term effectiveness of the practice facilitation program on CKD outcomes via an extended 10-year follow-up of the FROM-J study. METHODS: We enrolled patients who were in the FROM-J study. The primary composite endpoint comprised cardiovascular disease (CVD), renal replacement therapy initiation and a 50% decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The secondary endpoints were survival rate, eGFR decline rate and collaboration rate between PCPs and nephrologists. RESULTS: The occurrence of the primary composite endpoint tended to be lower in group B (group A: 27.1% versus group B: 22.1%, P = 0.051). Furthermore, CVD incidence was remarkably lower in group B (group A: 10.5% versus group B: 6.4%, P = 0.001). Although both mortality and the rate of eGFR decline were identical between both groups, the eGFR decline rate was significantly better in group B than in group A only in patients with stage G3a at enrollment (group A: 2.35 ± 3.87 mL/min/1.73 m2/year versus group B: 1.68 ± 2.98 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, P = 0.02). The collaboration rate was higher in group B. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD practice facilitation program for PCPs reliably decreases CVD events and may reduce the progression of cases to end-stage kidney disease.

Effective Facilitator Strategies for Supporting Primary Care Practice Change: A Mixed Methods Study.

PURPOSE: Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators. RESULTS: Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators (P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes.

Identifying Contextual Factors and Strategies for Practice Facilitation in Primary Care Quality Improvement Using an Informatics-Driven Model: Framework Development and Mixed Methods Case Study.

BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen increasing opportunities and efforts to integrate quality improvement into health care. Practice facilitation is a proven strategy to support redesign and improvement in primary care practices that focuses on building organizational capacity for continuous improvement. Practice leadership, staff, and practice facilitators all play important roles in supporting quality improvement in primary care. However, little is known about their perspectives on the context, enablers, barriers, and strategies that impact quality improvement initiatives. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a framework to enable assessment of contextual factors, challenges, and strategies that impact practice facilitation, clinical measure performance, and the implementation of quality improvement interventions. We also illustrated the application of the framework using a real-world case study. METHODS: We developed the TITO (task, individual, technology, and organization) framework by conducting participatory stakeholder workshops and incorporating their perspectives to identify enablers and barriers to quality improvement and practice facilitation. We conducted a case study using a mixed methods approach to demonstrate the use of the framework and describe practice facilitation and factors that impact quality improvement in a primary care practice that participated in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland study. RESULTS: The proposed framework was used to organize and analyze different stakeholders' perspectives and key factors based on framework domains. The case study showed that practice leaders, staff, and practice facilitators all influenced the success of the quality improvement program. However, these participants faced different challenges and used different strategies. The framework showed that barriers stemmed from patients' social determinants of health, a lack of staff and time, and unsystematic facilitation resources, while enablers included practice culture, staff buy-in, implementation of effective practice facilitation strategies, practice capacity for change, and shared complementary resources from similar, ongoing programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework provided a useful and generalizable structure to guide and support assessment of future practice facilitation projects, quality improvement initiatives, and health care intervention implementation studies. The practice leader, staff, and practice facilitator all saw value in the quality improvement program and practice facilitation. Practice facilitators are key liaisons to help the quality improvement program; they help all stakeholders work toward a shared target and leverage tailored strategies. Taking advantage of resources from competing, yet complementary, programs as additional support may accelerate the effective achievement of quality improvement goals. Practice facilitation-supported quality improvement programs may be opportunities to assist primary care practices in achieving improved quality of care through focused and targeted efforts. The case study demonstrated how our framework can support a better understanding of contextual factors for practice facilitation, which could enable well-prepared and more successful quality improvement programs for primary care practices. Combining implementation science and informatics thinking, our TITO framework may facilitate interdisciplinary research in both fields.

Using practice facilitation to improve alcohol-related care in primary care: a mixed-methods pilot study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use is a significant risk factor for disability and death in U.S. adults, and approximately one out of every six Veterans seen in primary care (PC) report unhealthy alcohol use. Unhealthy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for poor medical outcomes, substantial societal costs, and death, including suicide. Based on substantial evidence from randomized controlled trials and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, VA/DoD clinical guidelines stipulate that all Veterans screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use should receive evidence-based alcohol care in PC, including brief counseling interventions (BI) and additional treatment (e.g., pharmacotherapy) for those with alcohol use disorders (AUD). The VA pioneered implementing alcohol screening and BI in PC, yet substantial implementation gaps remain. To improve alcohol-related care, this study will conduct a pilot study to assess whether a multi-faceted evidence-based implementation strategy-practice facilitation-has the potential to improve PC-based alcohol-related care at a single VA clinic. METHODS: We will first recruit and conduct qualitative interviews with Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use (n = 20-25) and PC stakeholders (N = 10-15) to understand barriers and facilitators to high-quality alcohol care and use results to refine and hone the multifaceted practice facilitation intervention. Qualitative interviews, analysis, and refinement of the intervention will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Focus groups with a small sample of PC providers and staff (n = 5-7) will be used to further refine the practice facilitation intervention and assess its acceptability and feasibility. The refined practice facilitation intervention will then be offered in the PC clinic to assess implementation (e.g., reach) and effectiveness (reduced drinking) outcomes based on the RE-AIM framework. DISCUSSION: This research directly addresses one of the largest public health crises of our time, as alcohol kills more people than opioids and is associated with increased risk of suicide. If successful, this pilot may generate an intervention with far-reaching effects on adverse outcomes experienced by Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use, including increased access to care and suicide prevention. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04565899; Date of registration: 9/25/2020.