Health Services Research最新文献

Objective: To describe a structured, iterative, data-driven approach for modifying implementation strategies for a complex evidence-based practice during a nationwide scale-up initiative.

Data sources and study setting: We scaled-up implementation of Critical Time Intervention (CTI)-an evidence-based case management model-across 32 diverse community-based Veterans Affairs (VA) "Grant and Per Diem" case management (GPD-CM) agencies that serve homeless-experienced Veterans transitioning to independent living. Primary data were collected using qualitative methods.

Study design: We embarked on a scale-up initiative while conducting a pragmatic randomized evaluation using a roll-out design, comparing two versions of a CTI implementation package tailored to VA's GPD-CM program. We iteratively assessed contextual factors and implementation outcomes (e.g., acceptability); findings informed package modifications that were characterized using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies.

Data collection methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with Veterans, GPD-CM staff, and liaising VA clinicians; periodic reflections with liaising VA clinicians and implementation team members; and drew upon detailed meeting notes. We used rapid qualitative methods and content analysis to integrate data and characterize modifications.

Principal findings: After each scale-up wave-in response to variations in agency-level characteristics- we made iterative modifications to the implementation package to increase CTI adoption and fidelity across the diverse contexts of our scale-up sites. Modifications included adding, deleting, integrating, and altering the package; core package components were preserved.

Conclusions: Implementation packages for complex evidence-based practices undergoing scale-up in diverse contexts may benefit from iterative modifications to optimize practice adoption with fidelity. We offer a structured, pragmatic approach for iteratively identifying data-driven, midstream implementation package adjustments, for use in both VA and non-VA scale-up initiatives. Our project demonstrates the importance of assessing for and making modifications in a scale-up initiative, as well as the trade-offs of projects having simultaneous formative and summative evaluation aims.

Objective: To understand existing care practices and policies, and potential enhancements, to improve the effectiveness of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Health Care Navigators (HCN) in linking Veterans experiencing housing instability in rural areas with health care services.

Data sources and study setting: We used primary data collected during semistructured interviews with HCNs (n = 21) serving rural areas across the United States during Spring 2022.

Study design: We applied the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2009 and the Social Ecological Model (SEM) to the collection and analysis of qualitative data to understand how HCNs administer services within SSVF and the larger community.

Data collection/extraction methods: We used rapid qualitative methods to summarize and analyze data. Templated matrix summaries identified facilitators and barriers to linking Veterans with health care services and policy and practice implications.

Principal findings: Using CFIR 2009, we identified contextual factors affecting successful implementation of HCN services within SSVF; we offer a crosswalk between CFIR 2009 and the version updated in 2022. Framing facilitators and barriers within the SEM provided insight into whether implementation strategies should be addressed at a community, interpersonal, or intrapersonal level within the SEM. Facilitators included sufficient knowledge, training, and mentorship opportunities for HCNs and their capacity to collaborate within their organization and with other community-based organizations. Barriers included lack of local technology and housing resources, inadequate understanding of Veterans' service eligibilities and pathways to access those services, and deficient collaboration with the VA.

Conclusions: Understanding facilitators and barriers experienced by HCN when linking unstably housed Veterans in rural areas with health care services can inform future strategies, including policy changes such as increased training to support HCNs' understanding of eligibility, benefits, and entitlements as well as improving communication and collaboration between VA and community partners.

Objective: To evaluate nationwide implementation of a Guidebook designed to standardize safety practices across VA-delivered and VA-purchased care (i.e., Community Care) and identify lessons learned and strategies to improve them.

Data sources and study setting: Qualitative data collected from key informants at 18 geographically diverse VA facilities across 17 Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs).

Study design: We conducted semi-structured interviews from 2019 to 2022 with VISN Patient Safety Officers (PSOs) and VA facility patient safety and quality managers (PSMs and QMs) and VA Facility Community Care (CC) staff to assess lessons learned by examining organizational contextual factors affecting Guidebook implementation based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Data collection/extraction methods: Interviews were conducted virtually with 45 facility staff and 10 VISN PSOs. Using directed content analysis, we identified CFIR factors affecting implementation. These factors were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy compilation to identify lessons learned that could be useful to our operational partners in improving implementation processes. We met frequently with our partners to discuss findings and plan next steps.

Principal findings: Six CFIR constructs were identified as both facilitators and barriers to Guidebook implementation: (1) planning for implementation; (2) engaging key knowledge holders; (3) available resources; (4) networks and communications; (5) culture; and (6) external policies. The two CFIR constructs that were only barriers included: (1) cosmopolitanism and (2) executing implementation.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest several important lessons: (1) engage all collaborators involved in implementation; (2) ensure end-users have opportunities to provide feedback; (3) describe collaborators' purpose and roles/responsibilities clearly at the start; (4) communicate information widely and repeatedly; and (5) identify how multiple high priorities can be synergistic. This evaluation will help our partners and key VA leadership to determine next steps and future strategies for improving Guidebook implementation through collaboration with VA staff.