Implementing evidence-based practices to improve primary care for high-risk patients: study protocol for the VA high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) type III effectiveness-implementation trial.

Elvira E Jimenez, Ann-Marie Rosland, Susan E Stockdale, Ashok Reddy, Michelle S Wong, Natasha Torrence, Alexis Huynh, Evelyn T Chang
{"title":"Implementing evidence-based practices to improve primary care for high-risk patients: study protocol for the VA high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) type III effectiveness-implementation trial.","authors":"Elvira E Jimenez, Ann-Marie Rosland, Susan E Stockdale, Ashok Reddy, Michelle S Wong, Natasha Torrence, Alexis Huynh, Evelyn T Chang","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00613-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with significant multimorbidity and other factors that make healthcare challenging to access and coordinate are at high risk for poor health outcomes. Although most (93%) of Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) patients at high risk for hospitalization or death (\"high-risk Veterans\") are primarily managed by primary care teams, few of these teams have implemented evidence-based practices (EBPs) known to improve outcomes for the high-risk patient population's complex healthcare issues. Effective implementation strategies could increase adoption of these EBPs in primary care; however, the most effective implementation strategies to increase evidence-based care for high-risk patients are unknown. The high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) will compare two variants of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) strategies to implement two distinct EBPs for high-risk Veterans: individual coaching (EBQI-IC; tailored training with individual implementation sites to meet site-specific needs) versus learning collaborative (EBQI-LC; implementation sites trained in groups to encourage collaboration among sites). One EBP, Comprehensive Assessment and Care Planning (CACP), guides teams in addressing patients' cognitive, functional, and social needs through a comprehensive care plan. The other EBP, Medication Adherence Assessment (MAA), addresses common challenges to medication adherence using a patient-centered approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will recruit and randomize 16 sites to either EBQI-IC or EBQI-LC to implement one of the EBPs, chosen by the site. Each site will have a site champion (front-line staff) who will participate in 18 months of EBQI facilitation.</p><p><strong>Analysis: </strong>We will use a mixed-methods type 3 hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation trial to test EBQI-IC versus EBQI-LC versus usual care using a Concurrent Stepped Wedge design. We will use the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework to compare and evaluate Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and costs. We will then assess the maintenance/sustainment and spread of both EBPs in primary care after the 18-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be Reach, measured by the percentage of eligible high-risk patients who received the EBP.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study will identify which implementation strategy is most effective overall, and under various contexts, accounting for unique barriers, facilitators, EBP characteristics, and adaptations. Ultimately this study will identify ways for primary care clinics and teams to choose implementation strategies that can improve care and outcomes for patients with complex healthcare needs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05050643. Registered September 9th, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050643 PROTOCOL VERSION: This protocol is Version 1.0 which was created on 6/3/2020.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11251253/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00613-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with significant multimorbidity and other factors that make healthcare challenging to access and coordinate are at high risk for poor health outcomes. Although most (93%) of Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) patients at high risk for hospitalization or death ("high-risk Veterans") are primarily managed by primary care teams, few of these teams have implemented evidence-based practices (EBPs) known to improve outcomes for the high-risk patient population's complex healthcare issues. Effective implementation strategies could increase adoption of these EBPs in primary care; however, the most effective implementation strategies to increase evidence-based care for high-risk patients are unknown. The high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) will compare two variants of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) strategies to implement two distinct EBPs for high-risk Veterans: individual coaching (EBQI-IC; tailored training with individual implementation sites to meet site-specific needs) versus learning collaborative (EBQI-LC; implementation sites trained in groups to encourage collaboration among sites). One EBP, Comprehensive Assessment and Care Planning (CACP), guides teams in addressing patients' cognitive, functional, and social needs through a comprehensive care plan. The other EBP, Medication Adherence Assessment (MAA), addresses common challenges to medication adherence using a patient-centered approach.

Methods: We will recruit and randomize 16 sites to either EBQI-IC or EBQI-LC to implement one of the EBPs, chosen by the site. Each site will have a site champion (front-line staff) who will participate in 18 months of EBQI facilitation.

Analysis: We will use a mixed-methods type 3 hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation trial to test EBQI-IC versus EBQI-LC versus usual care using a Concurrent Stepped Wedge design. We will use the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework to compare and evaluate Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and costs. We will then assess the maintenance/sustainment and spread of both EBPs in primary care after the 18-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be Reach, measured by the percentage of eligible high-risk patients who received the EBP.

Discussion: Our study will identify which implementation strategy is most effective overall, and under various contexts, accounting for unique barriers, facilitators, EBP characteristics, and adaptations. Ultimately this study will identify ways for primary care clinics and teams to choose implementation strategies that can improve care and outcomes for patients with complex healthcare needs.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05050643. Registered September 9th, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050643 PROTOCOL VERSION: This protocol is Version 1.0 which was created on 6/3/2020.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实施循证实践,改善高风险患者的初级保健:退伍军人事务部高风险退伍军人(RIVET)III 型有效性实施试验的研究方案。
背景:患有严重多发病和其他因素导致难以获得和协调医疗保健服务的患者面临着不良健康后果的高风险。尽管大多数(93%)面临住院或死亡高风险的退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)患者("高风险退伍军人")主要由初级医疗团队管理,但这些团队中很少有实施循证实践(EBPs)的,而众所周知,循证实践可改善高风险患者群体复杂的医疗保健问题的治疗效果。有效的实施策略可以提高这些 EBPs 在初级保健中的采用率;然而,提高高风险患者循证护理的最有效实施策略尚不清楚。高风险退伍军人(RIVET)质量改进研究计划(QUERI)将比较两种不同的循证质量改进(EBQI)策略,以针对高风险退伍军人实施两种不同的 EBPs:个人辅导(EBQI-IC;与个别实施地点一起进行定制培训,以满足地点的特定需求)与学习合作(EBQI-LC;实施地点分组培训,以鼓励地点之间的合作)。其中一项 EBP,即综合评估和护理计划(CACP),指导团队通过综合护理计划满足患者的认知、功能和社会需求。另一项 EBP 是用药依从性评估 (MAA),采用以患者为中心的方法来解决用药依从性方面的常见问题:我们将招募并随机分配 16 个医疗点到 EBQI-IC 或 EBQI-LC,由医疗点选择实施其中一项 EBPs。每个医疗点将有一名医疗点负责人(一线员工)参与为期 18 个月的 EBQI 促进活动:我们将采用一种混合方法,即 "效果-实施 "第 3 类混合试验,通过并行阶梯式楔形设计,测试 EBQI-IC 与 EBQI-LC 与常规护理的对比情况。我们将使用实用、稳健实施和可持续性模型(PRISM)框架来比较和评估到达率、有效性、采用率、实施率和成本。然后,我们将评估这两种 EBPs 在 18 个月的实施期后在初级保健中的维持/可持续性和传播情况。我们的主要结果将是 "到达率",以符合条件的高风险患者接受 EBP 的百分比来衡量:讨论:我们的研究将确定在各种情况下,哪种实施策略总体上最有效,并考虑到独特的障碍、促进因素、EBP 特征和适应性。最终,这项研究将确定初级医疗诊所和团队选择实施策略的方法,从而改善有复杂医疗需求的患者的护理和治疗效果:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT05050643。注册日期:2021 年 9 月 9 日,https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050643 协议版本:本协议为 1.0 版,创建于 2020 年 3 月 6 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Audit and feedback is an effective implementation strategy to increase fidelity to a multi-component labor induction protocol designed to reduce obstetric inequities. Development of an implementation intervention to promote adoption of the COMFORT clinical practice guideline for peripartum pain management: a qualitative study. The system can change: a feasibility study of a doula-clinician collaborative at a large tertiary hospital in the United States. Development and evaluation of an implementation strategy to increase HPV vaccination among underserved youth across Texas: a protocol paper. Impact of learning health systems on cross-system collaboration between youth legal and community mental health systems: a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1