Implementing guideline-directed medical therapy: Stakeholder-identified barriers and facilitators

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS American heart journal Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2024.11.011
Josephine Harrington MD , Monica Leyva MHA , Vishal N Rao MD MPH , Megan Oakes , Nkiru Osude MD , Hayden B Bosworth PhD , Neha J Pagidipati MD MPH
{"title":"Implementing guideline-directed medical therapy: Stakeholder-identified barriers and facilitators","authors":"Josephine Harrington MD ,&nbsp;Monica Leyva MHA ,&nbsp;Vishal N Rao MD MPH ,&nbsp;Megan Oakes ,&nbsp;Nkiru Osude MD ,&nbsp;Hayden B Bosworth PhD ,&nbsp;Neha J Pagidipati MD MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.ahj.2024.11.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite strong evidence and Class I recommendations to support the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), use of these medications remain suboptimal. There is a great need to understand 1) what barriers to implementation of these therapies exist and 2) effective ways to support implementation of these therapies.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework, we conducted a broad array of interviews with stakeholders in the care of patients with HFrEF across 26 health systems to determine the barriers to GDMT implementation that health systems face, and to identify any factors that facilitated GDMT implementation and titration. We conducted interviews across a variety of health system phenotypes, including academic, private, fee-for-service, and bundled payment health systems to understand whether barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation existed across system types.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Barriers to GDMT implementation appeared to be consistent across phenotypes and included a lack of time, difficulty in maintaining GDMT across the inpatient to outpatient transition and, among non-HF specialists, a lack of knowledge of guidelines. However, differences emerged when stakeholders described whether tools (facilitators) were available to overcome these barriers to help facilitate GDMT implementation, particularly when comparing institutions with fee-for-service vs bundled payment models. Health systems using bundled payment models were more likely than fee-for-service systems to report that they had support staff such as care managers and pharmacist technicians to improve GDMT use, institutional support for improving GDMT implementation, and champions for GDMT. In contrast, systems using a fee-for-service model rarely reported that these tools were available.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this analysis of stakeholder-reported barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation and titration, we find health systems face similar barriers to GDMT implementation. However, we note that systems using bundled payment models are more likely to report the availability of tools to help overcome these barriers. Future work is needed to understand whether similar facilitators would be effective in fee-for-service systems, or whether alternative facilitators might be more appropriate.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7868,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal","volume":"281 ","pages":"Pages 23-31"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000287032400303X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Despite strong evidence and Class I recommendations to support the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), use of these medications remain suboptimal. There is a great need to understand 1) what barriers to implementation of these therapies exist and 2) effective ways to support implementation of these therapies.

Methods

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework, we conducted a broad array of interviews with stakeholders in the care of patients with HFrEF across 26 health systems to determine the barriers to GDMT implementation that health systems face, and to identify any factors that facilitated GDMT implementation and titration. We conducted interviews across a variety of health system phenotypes, including academic, private, fee-for-service, and bundled payment health systems to understand whether barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation existed across system types.

Results

Barriers to GDMT implementation appeared to be consistent across phenotypes and included a lack of time, difficulty in maintaining GDMT across the inpatient to outpatient transition and, among non-HF specialists, a lack of knowledge of guidelines. However, differences emerged when stakeholders described whether tools (facilitators) were available to overcome these barriers to help facilitate GDMT implementation, particularly when comparing institutions with fee-for-service vs bundled payment models. Health systems using bundled payment models were more likely than fee-for-service systems to report that they had support staff such as care managers and pharmacist technicians to improve GDMT use, institutional support for improving GDMT implementation, and champions for GDMT. In contrast, systems using a fee-for-service model rarely reported that these tools were available.

Conclusion

In this analysis of stakeholder-reported barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation and titration, we find health systems face similar barriers to GDMT implementation. However, we note that systems using bundled payment models are more likely to report the availability of tools to help overcome these barriers. Future work is needed to understand whether similar facilitators would be effective in fee-for-service systems, or whether alternative facilitators might be more appropriate.
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
实施指南指导的医疗治疗:利益相关者确定的障碍和促进因素。
背景:尽管有强有力的证据和一级推荐支持使用指南导向药物治疗(GDMT)治疗心力衰竭伴射血分数降低(HFrEF)患者,但这些药物的使用仍然不是最佳的。我们非常需要了解:1)实施这些疗法存在哪些障碍;2)支持实施这些疗法的有效方法。方法:使用实施研究框架的综合框架,我们对26个卫生系统中HFrEF患者护理的利益相关者进行了广泛的访谈,以确定卫生系统面临的GDMT实施障碍,并确定促进GDMT实施和滴定的任何因素。我们在各种卫生系统表型中进行了访谈,包括学术、私人、按服务收费和捆绑支付卫生系统,以了解在不同系统类型中是否存在GDMT实施的障碍和促进因素。结果:GDMT实施的障碍似乎在各种表型中是一致的,包括缺乏时间,在住院到门诊过渡期间维持GDMT的困难,以及在非hf专家中缺乏指南知识。然而,当利益相关者描述是否有工具(促进者)来克服这些障碍以帮助促进GDMT的实施时,特别是在比较服务收费与捆绑支付模式的机构时,差异就出现了。使用捆绑支付模式的卫生系统比按服务收费的系统更有可能报告说,他们有支持人员,如护理经理和药剂师技术人员来改善GDMT的使用,为改善GDMT的实施提供机构支持,以及GDMT的拥护者。相比之下,使用按服务收费模式的系统很少报告这些工具可用。结论:在对利益相关者报告的GDMT实施和滴定的障碍和促进因素的分析中,我们发现卫生系统面临类似的GDMT实施障碍。然而,我们注意到,使用捆绑支付模式的系统更有可能报告帮助克服这些障碍的工具的可用性。今后的工作需要了解类似的促进器是否在按服务收费的系统中有效,或者替代的促进器是否可能更合适。
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
American heart journal
American heart journal 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.10%
发文量
214
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The American Heart Journal will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the broad discipline of cardiovascular disease. Our goal is to provide the reader primary investigation, scholarly review, and opinion concerning the practice of cardiovascular medicine. We especially encourage submission of 3 types of reports that are not frequently seen in cardiovascular journals: negative clinical studies, reports on study designs, and studies involving the organization of medical care. The Journal does not accept individual case reports or original articles involving bench laboratory or animal research.
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board Information for Readers Occult cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: Rationale, design, and methods of the ValRIETEs study and the SOME-RIETE trial. Design, rationale, and characterization of the Mobile health based OccuPational cardiovascular risk intErventioN study (mHealth-OPEN Study).
×
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