Overcoming barriers to implementation: mapping implementation strategies in four hospital in home programs within the Veterans Health Administration.

The Hospital at Home model, called Hospital-in-Home (HIH) in the Department of Veterans Affairs, delivers coordinated, high-value care aligned with older adult and caregiver preferences. Documenting implementation barriers and corresponding strategies to overcome them can address challenges to widespread adoption. To evaluate HIH implementation barriers and identify strategies to address them, we conducted interviews with 8 HIH staff at 4 hospitals between 2010 and 2013. We utilized qualitative directed content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and mapped identified barriers to possible strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Matching Tool. We identified 11 barriers spanning 5 CFIR domains. Three implementation strategies - identifying and preparing champions, conducting educational meetings, and capturing and sharing local knowledge - achieved high expert endorsement for each barrier. A mix of strategies targeting resources, organizational readiness and fit, and leadership engagement should be considered to support the sustainability and spread of HIH.

Factors affecting the implementation of employee whole health in the veterans health administration: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of the need to focus on the health and well-being of healthcare employees given high rates of burnout and turnover. Employee wellness programs are effective at addressing these issues; however, participation in these programs is often a challenge and requires large scale organizational transformation. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has begun to roll out their own employee wellness program-Employee Whole Health (EWH)-focused on the holistic needs of all employees. This evaluation's goal was to use the Lean Enterprise Transformation (LET) model for organizational transformation to identify key factors-facilitators and barriers-affecting the implementation of VA EWH. METHODS: This cross-sectional qualitative evaluation based on the action research model reflects on the organizational implementation of EWH. Semi-structured 60-minute phone interviews were conducted in February-April 2021 with 27 key informants (e.g., EWH coordinator, wellness/occupational health staff) knowledgeable about EWH implementation across 10 VA medical centers. Operational partner provided a list of potential participants, eligible because of their involvement in EWH implementation at their site. The interview guide was informed by the LET model. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Constant comparative review with a combination of a priori coding based on the model and emergent thematic analysis was used to identify themes from transcripts. Matrix analysis and rapid turnaround qualitative methods were used to identify cross-site factors to EWH implementation. RESULTS: Eight common factors in the conceptual model were found to facilitate and/or hinder EWH implementation efforts: [1] EWH initiatives, [2] multilevel leadership support, [3] alignment, [4] integration, [5] employee engagement, [6] communication, [7] staffing, and [8] culture. An emergent factor was [9] the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on EWH implementation. CONCLUSIONS: As VA expands its EWH cultural transformation nationwide, evaluation findings can (a) enable existing programs to address known implementation barriers, and (b) inform new sites to capitalize on known facilitators, anticipate and address barriers, and leverage evaluation recommendations through concerted implementation at the organization, process, and employee levels to jump-start their EWH program implementation.

Supporting Veterans with dementia to remain in the community: strategies used in 12 Veterans Health Administration programs.

The Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides services to growing numbers of Veterans with dementIa, individuals at heightened risk for hospitalizations and nursing home placement. Beginning in 2010, the VA funded 12 innovative pilot programs to improve dementia care and help Veterans remain at home. We conducted a retrospective qualitative analysis of program materials and interviews with physicians, nurses, social workers, and other personnel (n = 33) to understand the strategies these programs adopted. Interviews were conducted every 6 months between 2010-2013 (4-5 interviews per program) and focused on factors affecting program design and implementation, challenges, and strategies to reduce hospitalizations and nursing home placements. Programs varied considerably yet shared three overarching strategies to improve dementia care: involving and supporting family caregivers; engaging interdisciplinary teams; and improving coordination with other healthcare providers. Our results highlight the importance of adapting common dementia care strategies based on the local context and needs of individuals served.

Lessons Learned From a Multisite Evaluation of Geriatric and Extended Care Programs.

With the increased use of multisite evaluation and implementation studies in health care, our team of evaluators reflects on our evaluation of a large-scale multiyear geriatric and extended care program implementation. We share lessons from conducting multiple rounds of data collection, analyses, and reporting. We also identify some key factors that can facilitate or hinder multisite evaluation efforts involving programs with different models of implementation. This article strives to improve the quality of large-scale evaluations of health programs implementation. Knowledge gained from this complex evaluation will inform public health programs funders, implementers, and key program staff to better plan for, engage in, and benefit from effective complex evaluations to promote health in diverse settings.

Identifying and overcoming implementation challenges: Experience of 59 noninstitutional long-term services and support pilot programs in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: From 2010 to 2013, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funded a large pilot initiative to implement noninstitutional long-term services and supports (LTSS) programs to support aging Veterans. Our team evaluated implementation of 59 VA noninstitutional LTSS programs. PURPOSE: The specific objectives of this study are to (a) examine the challenges influencing program implementation comparing active sites that remained open and inactive sites that closed during the funding period and (b) identify ways that active sites overcame the challenges they experienced. METHODOLOGY: Key informant semistructured interviews occurred between 2011 and 2013. We conducted 217 telephone interviews over four time points. Content analysis was used to identify emergent themes. The study team met regularly to define each challenge, review all codes, and discuss discrepancies. For each follow-up interview with the sites, the list of established challenges was used as a priori themes. Emergent data were also coded. RESULTS: The challenges affecting implementation included human resources and staffing issues, infrastructure, resources allocation and geography, referrals and marketing, leadership support, and team dynamics and processes. Programs were able to overcome challenges by communicating with team members and other areas in the organization, utilizing information technology solutions, creative use of staff and flexible schedules, and obtaining additional resources. DISCUSSION: This study highlights several common challenges programs can address during the program implementation. The most often mentioned strategy was effective communication. Strategies also targeted several components of the organization including organizational functions and processes (e.g., importance of coordination within a team and across disciplines to provide good care), infrastructure (e.g., information technology and human resources), and program fit with priorities in the organization (e.g., leadership support). IMPLICATIONS: Anticipating potential pitfalls of program implementation for future noninstitutional LTSS programs can improve implementation efficiency and program sustainability. Staff at multiple levels in the organization must fully support noninstitutional LTSS programs to address these challenges.

Factors Related to Higher and Lower Performance and Adherence in STAR-VA Program Sustainment in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Living Centers (CLCs).

OBJECTIVES: We identify factors associated with sustainment of an intervention (STAR-VA) to address distress behaviors in dementia (DBD), guided by the Organizational Memory Knowledge Reservoir (KR) framework, compared across 2 types of outcomes: (1) site performance improvement on a clinical outcome, the magnitude of change in levels of DBD, and (2) self-rated adherence to STAR-VA core components, a process outcome. DESIGN: We used a cross-sectional sequential explanatory mixed methods design guided by the Organizational Memory Framework. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected 20 of 79 sites that completed STAR-VA training and consultation based on rankings on 2 outcomes-change in an indicator of DBD and reported adherence to STAR-VA core components. We recruited key informants most knowledgeable about STAR-VA resulting in a sample of 43% behavioral coordinators, 36% nurse champions, and 21% nurse leaders. METHODS: We collected data with key informants at each Community Living Center (CLC) from December 2018 to June 2019. We analyzed data using within-case and cross-case matrixes created from the coded transcripts for each a priori KR domain. We then assessed if there were any similarities or differences for CLCs in comparable DBD performance and STAR-VA adherence categories. RESULTS: We found 4 KRs that differentiated sustainment factors based on CLC implementation process and clinical outcomes-3 KRs related to DBD performance (people, relationships, and routines) and 2 related to STAR-VA adherence (relationships and culture). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This evaluation found several knowledge retention mechanisms that differ in high and low performance/adherence sites. Our findings highlight knowledge retention/sustainment strategies based on site functioning to support sustainment strategies in the CLC. Understanding sustainment factors as they relate to clinical and process outcomes is innovative and can be used to support CLCs struggling with sustainment. More research is needed to inform tailored sustainment efforts based on site functioning in the nursing home setting.

Identifying Factors Affecting the Sustainability of the STAR-VA Program in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sustained implementation of new programs in complex care systems like nursing homes is challenging. This prospective qualitative evaluation examined factors affecting the sustainability of the Staff Training in Assisted Living Residences in Veterans Health Administration (STAR-VA) program in Veterans Health Administration (VA) Community Living Centers (CLC, i.e., nursing homes). STAR-VA is an evidence-based interdisciplinary, resident-centered, behavioral approach for managing distress behaviors in dementia. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS: In 2019, we conducted 39 semistructured phone interviews with STAR-VA key informants across 20 CLCs. We identified a priori themes based on the Organizational Memory Framework, which includes 7 Knowledge Reservoirs (KRs): people, routines, artifacts, relationships, organizational information space, culture, and structure. We conducted content-directed analysis of transcripts to identify factors to program sustainment. RESULTS: We identified 9 sustainment facilitators across KRs: engaged site leaders and champions, regular meetings and trainings, written documentation and resources, regular and open communication, available educational tools (e.g., handouts and posters), adequate spaces, leadership support on many levels, staff buy-in across disciplines, and staff competencies and recognition. Ten barriers across KRs included: staffing concerns, inconsistent/inefficient routines, inconsistent documentation, lack of written policies, communication gaps, nonstandardized use of tools, constraints with meeting spaces and regulations on posting information, limited leadership support, division among staff, and missing performance expectations. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings inform tailored strategies for optimizing STAR-VA program sustainment in CLCs, including the development of a sustained implementation guide, implementation resources, regional communities of practice, and STAR-VA integration into national CLC quality improvement routines for team communication and problem-solving.

Identification of Implementation Strategies Using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool to Mitigate Barriers in a Primary Care Model for Older Veterans.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As the proportion of the U.S. population over 65 and living with complex chronic conditions grows, understanding how to strengthen the implementation of age-sensitive primary care models for older adults, such as the Veterans Health Administration's Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACT), is critical. However, little is known about which implementation strategies can best help to mitigate barriers to adopting these models. We aimed to identify barriers to GeriPACT implementation and strategies to address these barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) Matching Tool. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of qualitative responses obtained from a web-based survey sent to GeriPACT members. Using a matrix approach, we grouped similar responses into key barrier categories. After mapping barriers to CFIR, we used the Tool to identify recommended strategies. RESULTS: Across 53 Veterans Health Administration hospitals, 32% of team members (n = 197) responded to our open-ended question about barriers to GeriPACT care. Barriers identified include Available Resources, Networks & Communication, Design Quality & Packaging, Knowledge & Beliefs, Leadership Engagement, and Relative Priority. The Tool recommended 12 Level 1 (e.g., conduct educational meetings) and 24 Level 2 ERIC strategies (e.g., facilitation). Several strategies (e.g., conduct local consensus discussions) cut across multiple barriers. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Strategies identified by the Tool can inform on-going development of the GeriPACT model's effective implementation and sustainment. Incorporating cross-cutting implementation strategies that mitigate multiple barriers at once may further support these next steps.

Integrating Intimate Partner Violence Screening Programs in Primary Care: Results from a Hybrid-II Implementation-Effectiveness RCT.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration initiated implementation facilitation to integrate intimate partner screening programs in primary care. This study investigates implementation facilitation's impact on implementation and clinical effectiveness outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, hybrid-II implementation-effectiveness trial (January 2021-April 2022) was conducted amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Implementation facilitation was applied at 9 Veterans Health Administration facilities, staged across 2 waves. Participants were all women receiving care at participating primary care clinics 3 months before (pre-implementation facilitation n=2,272) and 9 months after initiation of implementation facilitation (implementation facilitation n=5,149). INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation included an operations-funded external facilitator working for 6 months with a facility-funded internal facilitator from participating clinics. The pre-implementation facilitation period comprised implementation as usual in the Veterans Health Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were changes in (1) reach of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening programs among eligible women (i.e., those seen within participating clinics during the assessment period; implementation outcome) and (2) disclosure rates among screened women (effectiveness outcome). Secondary outcomes included disclosure rates among all eligible women and post-screening psychosocial service use. Administrative data were analyzed. RESULTS: For primary outcomes, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were nearly 3 times more likely to be screened for IPV than women seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.70, 95% CI=2.46, 2.97). Women screened during the implementation facilitation period were not more likely to disclose IPV than those screened during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.86, 1.51). For secondary outcomes, owing to increased reach of screening during implementation facilitation, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were more likely to disclose IPV than those seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.09, 95% CI=1.52, 2.86). Women screened during implementation facilitation were more likely to use post-screening psychosocial services than those screened during pre-implementation facilitation (OR=1.29, 95% CI=1.06, 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that implementation facilitation may be a promising strategy for increasing the reach of IPV screening programs in primary care, thereby increasing IPV detection and strengthening connections to support services among the patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04106193.

Using the Matrixed Multiple Case Study approach to identify factors affecting the uptake of IPV screening programs following the use of implementation facilitation.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent social determinant of health. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine IPV screening of women, but uptake remains variable. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated implementation facilitation (IF) to support integration of IPV screening programs into primary care clinics. An evaluation of IF efforts showed variability in IPV screening rates across sites. The follow-up study presented here used a Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS) approach to examine the multilevel factors impacting IPV screening program implementation across sites with varying levels of implementation success. METHODS: This mixed methods study is part of a larger cluster randomized stepped wedge Hybrid-II program evaluation. In the larger trial, participating sites received 6 months of IF consisting of an external facilitator from VHA's Office of Women's Health working closely with an internal facilitator and key site personnel. Recognizing the heterogeneity in implementation outcomes across sites, the MMCS approach was used to enable interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data within and across sites to help contextualize the primary findings from the larger study. Qualitative data collection was guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and included interviews with key informants involved in IPV screening implementation at eight sites. Quantitative data on IPV screening uptake was derived from medical records and surveys completed by key personnel at the same eight sites to understand implementation facilitation activities. RESULTS: Fifteen factors influencing IPV screening implementation spanning all four i-PARIHS domains were identified and categorized into three distinct categories: (1) factors with enabling influence across all sites, (2) factors deemed important to implementation success, and (3) factors differentiating sites with high/medium versus low implementation success. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the influencing factors across multi-level domains contributing to variable success of IPV screening implementation can inform the tailoring of IF efforts to promote spread and quality of screening. Implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care with IF should consider consistent engagement of internal facilitators with clinic staff involved in implementation, the resourcefulness of external facilitators, and appending resources to IPV screening tools to help key personnel address positive screens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04106193. Registered on September 26, 2019.

Intimate Partner Violence Screening for Women in the Veterans Health Administration: Temporal Trends from the Early Years of Implementation 2014-2020.

Thousands of women Veterans experience intimate partner violence (IPV) each year. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has encouraged IPV screening in Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) since 2014. Through retrospective analysis of VHA administrative data from fiscal year (FY) 2014 into FY2020, we examined IPV screening implementation outcomes of reach and adoption, as well as screen-positive rates using descriptive and multivariate linear regression analyses. We examined reach and screen-positive rates overall and as a function of childbearing age (18-44 vs. 45+ years). In FY2014 only one VAMC was screening women for IPV; by FY2020, over half of VAMCs had adopted IPV screening. This rollout of IPV screening was associated with a large increase in the number of women primary care patients screened (from fewer than 500 in FY2014, to nearly 35,000 in early FY2020). Overall, among women screened, 6.7% screened positive for IPV; this rate was higher among women of childbearing age (8.1% vs. 5.6%). Despite the spread of IPV screening practices during the early years of implementation in VHA, additional work is needed. This study is the first comprehensive analysis of implementation outcomes associated with VHA's IPV screening efforts, and lays the groundwork for ongoing evaluation and quality improvement.

Screening for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: An implementation-oriented systematic review.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. Screening for IPV within healthcare settings can identify women who experience IPV and inform counseling, referrals, and interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring externally funded study staff and resources. This systematic review therefore investigated the utility of IPV screening administered by frontline clinical personnel. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review focusing on studies of IPV screening programs for women delivered by frontline healthcare staff. We based our data synthesis on two widely used implementation models (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [RE-AIM] and Proctor's dimensions of implementation effectiveness). Results: We extracted data from 59 qualifying studies. Based on data extraction guided by the RE-AIM framework, the median reach of the IPV screening programs was high (80%), but Emergency Department (ED) settings were found to have a much lower reach (47%). The median screen positive rate was 11%, which is comparable to the screen-positive rate found in studies using externally funded research staff. Among those screening positive, a median of 32% received a referral to follow-up services. Based on data extraction guided by Proctor's dimension of appropriateness, a lack of available referral services frustrated some efforts to implement IPV screening. Among studies reporting data on maintenance or sustainability of IPV screening programs, only half concluded that IPV screening rates held steady during the maintenance phase. Other domains of the RE-AIM and Proctor frameworks (e.g., implementation fidelity and costs) were reported less frequently. Conclusions: IPV is a population health issue, and successfully implementing IPV screening programs may be part of the solution. Our review emphasizes the importance of ongoing provider trainings, readily available referral sources, and consistent institutional support in maintaining appropriate IPV screening programs. Plain language abstract: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. IPV screening and response can identify women who experience IPV and can inform interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many of the screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring administration by externally funded study staff. This systematic review of IPV screening programs for women is particularly novel, as previous reviews have not focused on clinical implementation. It provides a better understanding of successful ways of implementing IPV screening and response practices with frontline clinical personnel in the context of routine care. Successfully implementing IPV screening programs may help mitigate the harms resulting from IPV against women. Findings from this review can inform future efforts to improve implementation of IPV screening programs in clinical settings to ensure that the victims of IPV have access to appropriate counseling, resources, and referrals.

Factors affecting primary care implementation for older veterans with multimorbidity in Veterans Health Administration (VA).

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors affecting implementation of Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACTs), a patient-centered medical home model for older adults with complex care needs including multiple chronic conditions (MCC), designed to provide them with comprehensive, managed, and coordinated primary care. DATA SOURCES: Qualitative data were collected from key informants at eight Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers geographically spread across the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we collected prospective primary data through semi-structured interviews with GeriPACT team members (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists), leaders (e.g., executive leaders, middle managers), and other staff referring to the program. DATA COLLECTION: We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with 134 key informants. Interviews were recorded with permission and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded in Nvivo 11. We used directed content analysis to identify key factors affecting GeriPACT implementation across sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Five key factors affected GeriPACT implementation-five CFIR constructs within two CFIR domains. Within the intervention characteristics domain, two constructs emerged, namely, (1) the structure of the GeriPACT model and (2) design, quality, and packaging. Within the inner setting domain, we identified three constructs, namely, (1) available resources (e.g., staffing and space, and infrastructure and information technology), (2) leadership support and engagement, and (3) networks and communications including teamwork, communication, and coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Older veterans with MCC have complex primary care needs requiring high levels of care management and coordination. Knowing what key factors affect GeriPACT implementation is critical. Study findings also contribute to the growing implementation science literature on applying CFIR to evaluate factors that affect program implementation, especially to aging research. Further studies on MCC-focused specialty primary care will help facilitate patient-centered care provision for older adults' complex health needs while also leveraging synergistic work across factors affecting implementation.

Getting Routine Intimate Partner Violence Screening Right: Implementation Strategies Used in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the clinical effectiveness of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening programs, but less is known about implementing and sustaining them. This qualitative study identified implementation strategies used to integrate IPV screening programs within Veterans Health Administration (VHA) women's health primary care. METHODS: Thirty-two administrators and clinician key informants from 11 VHA facilities participated in semistructured interviews. Implementation strategies were identified using established definitions from implementation science literature, through multistep content analysis, involving site comparisons by implementation status. RESULTS: We identified 8 implementation strategies. Three were present across all sites: (1) conduct ongoing IPV trainings, (2) conduct educational meetings and outreach visits, and (3) develop and distribute educational materials. Five strategies were unique to early adopting sites: (4) identify and prepare champions, (5) change record systems to remind clinicians, (6) create a learning collaborative through advisory boards or workgroups, (7) audit and provide feedback with relay of clinical data to providers, and (8) access new funding. DISCUSSION: Strategies align with and extend literature addressing barriers to screening. Evidence shows that effective IPV screening implementation in primary care requires a bundle of well-defined, carefully selected strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies used collectively can enable integration of IPV screening programs in primary care.

Assessing the Veterans Health Administration's response to intimate partner violence among women: protocol for a randomized hybrid type 2 implementation-effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in the United States (US) remains a complex public health crisis. Women who experience IPV are among the most vulnerable patients seen in primary care. Screening increases the detection of IPV and, when paired with appropriate response interventions, can mitigate the health effects of IPV. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has encouraged evidence-based IPV screening programs since 2014, yet adoption is modest and questions remain regarding the optimal ways to implement these practices, which are not yet available within the majority of VA primary care clinics. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the planned evaluation of VA's nationwide implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care clinics through a randomized implementation-effectiveness hybrid type 2 trial. With the support of our VA operational partners, we propose a stepped wedge design to compare the impact of two implementation strategies of differing intensities (toolkit + implementation as usual vs. toolkit + implementation facilitation) and investigate the clinical effectiveness of IPV screening programs. Using balanced randomization, 16-20 VA Medical Centers will be assigned to receive implementation facilitation in one of three waves, with implementation support lasting 6 months. Implementation facilitation in this effort consists of the coordinated efforts of the two types of facilitators, external and internal. Implementation facilitation is compared to dissemination of a toolkit plus implementation as usual. We propose a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (clinical records data) and qualitative (key informant interviews) implementation outcomes, as well as quantitative (clinical records data) clinical effectiveness outcomes. We will supplement these data collection methods with provider surveys to assess discrete implementation strategies used before, during, and following implementation facilitation. The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will guide the qualitative data collection and analysis. Summative data will be analyzed using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. DISCUSSION: This research will advance national VHA efforts by identifying the practices and strategies useful for enhancing the implementation of IPV screening programs, thereby ultimately improving services for and health of women seen in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04106193. Registered on 23 September 2019.

Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams in Department of Veterans Affairs: How Are They Structured?

Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACT) were implemented in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (i.e., Patient-Centered Medical Homes for older adults) to provide high quality coordinated care to older adults with more risk of negative health and psychosocial outcomes. The objectives of this paper are: (1) to present data on GeriPACT structural characteristics; and (2) to examine a composite measure of GeriPACT model consistency. We utilized a web survey targeting 71 physician leads resulting in a 62% response rate. We found GeriPACTs employed a range of staffing, empanelment, clinic space, and patient assignment practices. The mean value of the GeriPACT consistency measure was 2.03 (range: 1-4) and 6.3% of facilities were considered consistent to the GeriPACT model. We observed large variation in GeriPACT structure and in model consistency. More research is needed to understand how these variations are related to processes and outcomes of care.

Identifying barriers to culture change: A qualitative analysis of the obstacles to delivering resident-centered care.

A growing number of healthcare organizations have moved from traditional, institutional nursing home models to ones that emphasize culture change, or resident-centered care (RCC). In 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began implementing a number of changes to VA nursing homes, now called Community Living Centers (CLCs), to provide veterans with a more resident-centered and homelike environment. This study aimed to understand the barriers CLC staff face when delivering RCC. Ten CLCs were included on the basis of their performance levels on RCC and quality of care. Semistructured interviews that focused on facility efforts in RCC and quality were conducted with all levels of staff. Interviews were systematically content coded. We found similarities and differences in barriers reported at high- and low-performing sites. Staff across all performance levels cited 5 main categories of barriers to delivering RCC: staffing, resources, acuity of residents, RCC and quality of care conflicts, and regulations. Staff in high-performing sites reported fewer barriers to RCC, although 1 barrier cited was difficulty coordinating RCC across departments. Staff in low-performing sites reported additional categories of barriers related to administrator turnover/lack of guidance, CLC culture/staff morale, and difficulty working with residents and families. As RCC continues to spread, it is important to anticipate the barriers to implementing these practices. Particular focus on regulatory, leadership, organizational, workforce, and process factors may help organizations avoid or reduce barriers to RCC. Given their training and skill set, mental health providers may be uniquely situated to assist staff in overcoming these barriers. (PsycINFO Database Record