Early implementation of an electronic measurement-based care tool in substance use disorder treatment clinics.

Abstract

Background: Measurement-based care (MBC), routinely measuring and reviewing treatment progress with a standardized tool, can inform clinical decision making and improve patient outcomes. Despite potential benefits, implementation of MBC in SUD treatment settings has been limited and little is known about its implementation in SUD settings. The goal of this convergent parallel mixed methods study was to understand staff experiences during early implementation of MBC in SUD treatment clinics.

Methods: The Treatment Progress Assessment-8 (TPA8) is an 8-item measure that supports MBC with an electronic system (eTPA8) allowing client completion on electronic devices and providing staff reports. The study introduced the eTPA8 into 13 clinics using external practice facilitation and implementation teams. Quantitative data examining implementation included eTPA8 system data (1672 administrations) and staff surveys (n = 70) using feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness measures. Semi-structured interviews (n = 34) were conducted with clinic staff. To analyze data, we classified clinics into adopters, non-adopters, and sustainers using eTPA8 system data. One-way ANOVA compared these classifications on the three implementation outcome measures. Rapid qualitative analysis was used for the interviews.

Results: There were significant differences between staff in sustainer (M = 3.90) and non-adopter (M = 3.21) clinics on the feasibility measure (F(2, 68) = [4.28], p = 0.018). SUD program staff found the eTPA8 to be user-friendly, appropriate, and acceptable. There was some variation in perceived feasibility of regular use of the eTPA8, especially given competing demands and time constraints. Staff found the eTPA8 useful to support clinical interactions but varied in embracing new technology and the overall MBC concept. The inner and outer contexts influenced implementation and required attention by clinic champions and implementation teams. External practice facilitators were key to addressing barriers in an ongoing and flexible manner.

Conclusions: Implementing MBC using the eTPA8 showed promise. Staff felt the TPA8 was generally clinically useful, appropriate, and acceptable; yet feasibility was variable. Adoption of MBC faced barriers (e.g., competing demands). Implementation required relatively intensive implementation supports that were dynamic, proactive, and responsive. Findings have implications for guiding development and refinement of responsive, theory-driven implementation strategies to support MBC in SUD treatment settings, with a particular focus on addressing feasibility.