BackgroundExternal change agents can play an essential role in healthcare organizational change efforts. This systematic review examines the role that external change agents have played within the context of multifaceted interventions designed to promote organizational change in healthcare—specifically, in primary care settings.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier Databases in July 2016 for randomized trials published (in English) between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2016 in which external agents were part of multifaceted organizational change strategies. The review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 477 abstracts were identified and screened by 2 authors. Full text articles of 113 studies were reviewed. Twenty-one of these studies were selected for inclusion.ResultsAcademic detailing (AD) is the most prevalently used organizational change strategy employed as part of multi-component implementation strategies. Out of 21 studies, nearly all studies integrate some form of audit and feedback into their interventions. Eleven studies that included practice facilitation into their intervention reported significant effects in one or more primary outcomes.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that practice facilitation with regular, tailored follow up is a powerful component of a successful organizational change strategy. Academic detailing alone or combined with audit and feedback alone is ineffective without intensive follow up. Provision of educational materials and use of audit and feedback are often integral components of multifaceted implementation strategies. However, we didn’t find examples where those relatively limited strategies were effective as standalone interventions. System-level support through technology (such as automated reminders or alerts) is potentially helpful, but must be carefully tailored to clinic needs.

BackgroundThis paper reports on the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of an innovative implementation strategy named “systems consultation” aimed at improving adherence to clinical guidelines for opioid prescribing in primary care. While clinical guidelines for opioid prescribing have been developed, they have not been widely implemented, even as opioid abuse reaches epidemic levels.MethodsWe tested a blended implementation strategy consisting of several discrete implementation strategies, including audit and feedback, academic detailing, and external facilitation. The study compares four intervention clinics to four control clinics in a randomized matched-pairs design. Each systems consultant aided clinics on implementing the guidelines during a 6-month intervention consisting of monthly site visits and teleconferences/videoconferences. The mixed-methods evaluation employs the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. Quantitative outcomes are compared using time series analysis. Qualitative methods included focus groups, structured interviews, and ethnographic field techniques.ResultsSeven clinics were randomly approached to recruit four intervention clinics. Each clinic designated a project team consisting of six to eight staff members, each with at least one prescriber. Attendance at intervention meetings was 83%. More than 80% of staff respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statements: “I am more familiar with guidelines for safe opioid prescribing” and “My clinic’s workflow for opioid prescribing is easier.” At 6 months, statistically significant improvements were noted in intervention clinics in the percentage of patients with mental health screens, treatment agreements, urine drug tests, and opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing. At 12 months, morphine-equivalent daily dose was significantly reduced in intervention clinics compared to controls. The cost to deliver the strategy was $7345 per clinic. Adaptations were required to make the strategy more acceptable for primary care. Qualitatively, intervention clinics reported that chronic pain was now treated using approaches similar to those employed for other chronic conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes.ConclusionsThe systems consultation implementation strategy demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in a study involving eight primary care clinics. This multi-disciplinary strategy holds potential to mitigate the prevalence of opioid addiction and ultimately may help to improve implementation of clinical guidelines across healthcare.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02433496). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02433496Registered May 5, 2015Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0713-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) services are growing in importance in health care research with the advancement of wireless networks, tablets, and mobile phone technologies. These technologies offer a wide range of applications that cover the spectrum of health care delivery. Although preliminary experiments in mHealth demonstrate promising results, more robust real-world evidence is needed for widespread adoption and sustainment of these technologies.ObjectiveOur aim was to identify the problems/challenges associated with sustained use of an mHealth addiction recovery support app and to determine strategies used by agencies that successfully sustained client use of A-CHESS.MethodsQualitative inquiry assessed staff perceptions about organizational attributes and strategies associated with sustained use of the mobile app, A-CHESS. A total of 73 interviews of clinicians and administrators were conducted. The initial interviews (n=36) occurred at the implementation of A-CHESS. Follow-up interviews (n=37) occurred approximately 12 and 24 months later. A coding scheme was developed and Multiuser NVivo was used to manage and analyze the blinded interview data.ResultsSuccessful strategies used by treatment providers to sustain A-CHESS included (1) strong leadership support, (2) use of client feedback reports to follow up on non-engaged clients, (3) identify passionate staff and incorporate A-CHESS discussions in weekly meetings, (4) develop A-CHESS guidelines related to client use, (5) establish internal work groups to engage clients, and (6) establish a financial strategy to sustain A-CHESS use. The study also identified attributes of A-CHESS that enhanced as well as inhibited its sustainability.ConclusionsMobile apps can play an important role in health care delivery. However, providers will need to develop strategies for engaging both staff and patients in ongoing use of the apps. They will also need to rework business processes to accommodate the changes in communication frequency and style, learn to use app data for decision making, and identify financing mechanisms for supporting these changes.

BackgroundOpioid dependence has devastating and increasingly widespread consequences and costs, and the most common outcome of treatment is early relapse. People who inject opioids are also at disproportionate risk for contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). This study tests an approach that has been shown to improve recovery rates: medication along with other supportive services (medication-assisted treatment, or MAT) against MAT combined with a smartphone innovation called A-CHESS (MAT + A-CHESS).Methods/designThis unblinded study will randomly assign 440 patients to receive MAT + A-CHESS or MAT alone. Eligible patients will meet criteria for having an opioid use disorder of at least moderate severity and will be taking methadone, injectable naltrexone, or buprenorphine. Patients with A-CHESS will have smartphones for 16 months; all patients will be followed for 24 months. The primary outcome is the difference between patients in the two arms in percentage of days using illicit opioids during the 24-month intervention. Secondary outcomes are differences between patients receiving MAT + A-CHESS versus MAT in other substance use, quality of life, retention in treatment, health service use, and, related to HIV and HCV, screening and testing rates, medication adherence, risk behaviors, and links to care. We will also examine mediators and moderators of the effects of MAT + A-CHESS.We will measure variables at baseline and months 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. At each point, patients will respond to a 20- to 30-min phone survey; urine screens will be collected at baseline and up to twice a month thereafter. We will use mixed-effects to evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes, with baseline scores functioning as covariates, treatment condition as a between-subject factor, and the outcomes reflecting scores for a given assessment at the six time points. Separate analyses will be conducted for each outcome.DiscussionA-CHESS has been shown to improve recovery for people with alcohol dependence. It offers an adaptive and extensive menu of services and can attend to patients nearly as constantly as addiction does. This suggests the possibility of increasing both the effectiveness of, and access to, treatment for opioid dependence.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02712034. Registered on 14 March 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1726-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIn order to promote guideline-concordant opioid prescribing practices, a blended implementation strategy called systems consultation was pilot tested in four primary care clinics in one US health system.ObjectivesTo describe (1) how systems consultation worked during the pilot test and (2) the modifications necessary to adapt this implementation strategy to primary care.MethodsA team of investigators conducted observations (n=24), focus groups (n=4) and interviews (n=2). The team; kept contact logs documenting all interactions with the intervention clinics and preserved all work products resulting from the intervention. Initial analysis was concurrent with data collection and findings were used to modify the intervention in real time. At the conclusion of the pilot test, a pragmatic descriptive analysis of all data was performed to explore key modifications.ResultsTime constraints, entrenched hierarchical structures and a lack of quality improvement skills among clinical staff were the main barriers to implementing systems consultation. Modifications made to address these conditions included creating a consulting team, giving change teams more direction, revising process improvement tools, supporting the use of electronic health record (EHR) functionalities and providing opportunities for shared learning among clinics.Discussion and conclusionWith the lessons of this research in mind, our goal in future iterations of systems consultation is to give clinics a combination of clinical, organisational change and EHR expertise optimised according to their needs. We believe a streamlined process for assessing the key characteristics identified in this study can be used to develop a plan for this kind of optimisation, or tailoring, and we will be developing such a process as part of an upcoming clinical trial.

Objective: To characterize system-level barriers to bariatric surgery from the perspectives of Veterans with severe obesity and obesity care providers. Summary of Background Data: Bariatric surgery is the most effective weight loss option for Veterans with severe obesity, but fewer than 0.1% of Veterans with severe obesity undergo it. Addressing low utilization of bariatric surgery and weight management services is a priority for the veterans health administration. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with Veterans with severe obesity who were referred for or underwent bariatric surgery, and providers who delivered care to veterans with severe obesity, including bariatric surgeons, primary care providers, registered dietitians, and health psychologists. We asked study participants to describe their experiences with the bariatric surgery delivery process in the VA system. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four coders iteratively developed a codebook and used conventional content analysis to identify relevant systems or ''contextual'' barriers within Andersen Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. Results: Seventy-three semi-structured interviews with veterans (n ¼ 33) and providers (n ¼ 40) throughout the veterans health administration system were completed. More than three-fourths of Veterans were male, whereas nearly three-fourths of the providers were female. Eight themes were mapped onto Andersen model as barriers to bariatric surgery: poor care coordination, lack of bariatric surgery guidelines, limited primary care providers and referring provider knowledge about bariatric surgery, long travel distances, delayed referrals, limited access to healthy foods, difficulties meetings preoperative requirements, and lack of provider availability and/or time. Conclusions: Addressing system-level barriers by improving coordination of care and standardizing some aspects of bariatric surgery care may improve access to evidence-based severe obesity care within VA.

No abstract

Objectives: Transferred emergency general surgery (EGS) patients experience worse outcomes than directly admitted patients. Improving communication during transfers may improve patient care. We sought to understand the nature of and challenges to communication between referring (RP) and accepting (AP) providers transferring EGS patients from the transfer center nurse's (TCN) perspective.Methods: Guided by the Relational Coordination Framework, we interviewed 17 TCNs at an academic medical center regarding (in)efficient and (in)effective communication between RPs and APs. In-person interviews were recorded, transcribed, and managed in NVivo. Four researchers developed a codebook, cocoded transcripts, and met regularly to build consensus and discuss emergent themes. We used data matrices to perform constant comparisons and arrive at higher-level concepts.Results: Challenges to ideal communication centered on the appropriateness and completeness of information, efficiency of the conversation, and degree of consensus. Transfer center nurses described that RPs provided incomplete information because of a lack of necessary infrastructure, personnel, or technical knowledge; competing clinical demands; or a fear of the transfer request being rejected. Inefficient communication resulted from RPs being unfamiliar with the information APs expected and the lack of a structured process to share information. Communication also failed when providers disagreed about the necessity of the transfer. Accepting providers diffused tension and facilitated communication by embracing the role of a "coach," negotiating "wait-and-see" agreements, and providing explanations of why transfers were unnecessary.Conclusions: Transfer center nurses described numerous challenges to provider communication. Opportunities for improvement include sharing appropriate and complete information, ensuring efficient communication, and reaching consensus about the course of action.