Screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly expected in primary care, consistent with clinical prevention guidelines (e.g., United States Preventive Services Task Force). Yet, little is known about real-world implementation of clinical practices or contextual factors impacting IPV screening program success. This study identified successful clinical practices, and barriers to and facilitators of IPV screening program implementation in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study of a purposeful sample of 11 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) categorized as early and late adopters of IPV screening programs within women's health primary care clinics. VAMCs were categorized based on performance measures collected by VHA operations partners. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two administrators and clinician key informants (e.g., Women's Health Medical Directors, IPV Coordinators, and physicians) involved in IPV screening program implementation decisions from six early-and five late-adopting sites nationwide. MAIN MEASURES: Participants reported on IPV screening and response practices, and contextual factors impacting implementation, in individual 1-h semi-structured phone interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid content analysis with key practices and issues synthesized in profile summaries. Themes were identified and iteratively revised, utilizing matrices to compare content across early-and late-adopting sites. KEY RESULTS: Five successful clinical practices were identified (use of two specific screening tools for primary IPV screening and secondary risk assessment, multilevel resource provision and community partnerships, colocation of mental health/social work, and patient-c e nt er e d d o c u m en t a t i o n). M u l t i l ev e l b a r r i e r s (time/resource constraints, competing priorities and mounting responsibilities in primary care, lack of policy, inadequate training, and discomfort addressing IPV) and facilitators (engaged IPV champions, internal and external supports, positive feedback regarding IPV screening practices, and current, national attention to violence against women) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Findings advance national efforts by highlighting successful clinical practices for IPV screening programs and informing strategies useful for enhancing their implementation within and beyond the VHA, ultimately improving services and women's health.
Our results support the broader use of the BJBC survey within VA. In addition, given the high levels of internal consistency reliability of the current scales, it is likely that a psychometrically sound short form of the instrument could be created. Further research on construct and convergent validity are warranted to support the broader application of the instrument.
Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. Screening for IPV within healthcare settings can identify women who experience IPV and inform counseling, referrals, and interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring externally funded study staff and resources. This systematic review therefore investigated the utility of IPV screening administered by frontline clinical personnel. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review focusing on studies of IPV screening programs for women delivered by frontline healthcare staff. We based our data synthesis on two widely used implementation models (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [RE-AIM] and Proctor's dimensions of implementation effectiveness). Results We extracted data from 59 qualifying studies. Based on data extraction guided by the RE-AIM framework, the median reach of the IPV screening programs was high (80%), but Emergency Department (ED) settings were found to have a much lower reach (47%). The median screen positive rate was 11%, which is comparable to the screen-positive rate found in studies using externally funded research staff. Among those screening positive, a median of 32% received a referral to follow-up services. Based on data extraction guided by Proctor's dimension of appropriateness, a lack of available referral services frustrated some efforts to implement IPV screening. Among studies reporting data on maintenance or sustainability of IPV screening programs, only half concluded that IPV screening rates held steady during the maintenance phase. Other domains of the RE-AIM and Proctor frameworks (e.g., implementation fidelity and costs) were reported less frequently. Conclusions IPV is a population health issue, and successfully implementing IPV screening programs may be part of the solution. Our review emphasizes the importance of ongoing provider trainings, readily available referral sources, and consistent institutional support in maintaining appropriate IPV screening programs. Plain language abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. IPV screening and response can identify women who experience IPV and can inform interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many of the screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring administration by externally funded study staff. This systematic review of IPV screening programs for women is particularly novel, as previous reviews have not focused on clinical implementation. It provides a better understanding of successful ways of implementing IPV screening and response practices with frontline clinical personnel in the context of routine care. Successfully implementing IPV screening programs may help mitigate the harms resulting from IPV against women. Findings from this review can inform future efforts to improve implementation of IPV screening programs in clinical settings to ensure that the victims of IPV have access to appropriate counseling, resources, and referrals.
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in the United States (US) remains a complex public health crisis. Women who experience IPV are among the most vulnerable patients seen in primary care. Screening increases the detection of IPV and, when paired with appropriate response interventions, can mitigate the health effects of IPV. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has encouraged evidence-based IPV screening programs since 2014, yet adoption is modest and questions remain regarding the optimal ways to implement these practices, which are not yet available within the majority of VA primary care clinics. Methods/design: This paper describes the planned evaluation of VA's nationwide implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care clinics through a randomized implementation-effectiveness hybrid type 2 trial. With the support of our VA operational partners, we propose a stepped wedge design to compare the impact of two implementation strategies of differing intensities (toolkit + implementation as usual vs. toolkit + implementation facilitation) and investigate the clinical effectiveness of IPV screening programs. Using balanced randomization, 16-20 VA Medical Centers will be assigned to receive implementation facilitation in one of three waves, with implementation support lasting 6 months. Implementation facilitation in this effort consists of the coordinated efforts of the two types of facilitators, external and internal. Implementation facilitation is compared to dissemination of a toolkit plus implementation as usual. We propose a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (clinical records data) and qualitative (key informant interviews) implementation outcomes, as well as quantitative (clinical records data) clinical effectiveness outcomes. We will supplement these data collection methods with provider surveys to assess discrete implementation strategies used before, during, and following implementation facilitation. The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will guide the qualitative data collection and analysis. Summative data will be analyzed using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.
OBJECTIVES To identify the perceived organizational resources required by healthcare workers to deliver geriatric primary care in a geriatric patient aligned care team (GeriPACT). DESIGN Cross‐sectional observational study using deductive analyses of qualitative interviews conducted with GeriPACT team members. SETTING GeriPACTs practicing at eight geographically dispersed Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS GeriPACT clinicians, nurses, clerical associates, clinical pharmacists, and social workers (n = 67). MEASUREMENTS Semistructured qualitative interviews conducted in person, transcribed, and then analyzed using the PACT Resources Framework. RESULTS Using the PACT Resources Framework, we identified facility‐, clinic‐, and team‐level resources critical for GeriPACT implementation. Resources within each level reflect how the needs of older adults with complex comorbidity intersect with general population primary care medical home practice. GeriPACT implementation is facilitated by attention to patient characteristics such as cognitive impairment, ambulatory limitations, or social support services in staffing and resourcing teams. CONCLUSION Models of geriatric primary care such as GeriPACT must be implemented with an eye toward the most effective use of our most limited resource‐trained geriatricians. In contrast to much of the literature on medical home teams serving a general adult population, interviews with GeriPACT members emphasize how patient needs inform all aspects of practice design including universal accessibility, near real‐time response to patient needs, and ongoing interdisciplinary care coordination. Examination of GeriPACT implementation resources through the lens of traditional primary care teams illustrates the importance of tailoring primary care design to the needs of older adults with complex comorbidity.
Background:From 2010 to 2013, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funded a large pilot initiative to implement noninstitutional long-term services and supports (LTSS) programs to support aging Veterans. Our team evaluated implementation of 59 VA noninstitutional LTSS programs.Purpose:The specific objectives of this study are to (a) examine the challenges influencing program implementation comparing active sites that remained open and inactive sites that closed during the funding period and (b) identify ways that active sites overcame the challenges they experienced.Methodology:Key informant semistructured interviews occurred between 2011 and 2013. We conducted 217 telephone interviews over four time points. Content analysis was used to identify emergent themes. The study team met regularly to define each challenge, review all codes, and discuss discrepancies. For each follow-up interview with the sites, the list of established challenges was used as a priori themes. Emergent data were also coded.Results:The challenges affecting implementation included human resources and staffing issues, infrastructure, resources allocation and geography, referrals and marketing, leadership support, and team dynamics and processes. Programs were able to overcome challenges by communicating with team members and other areas in the organization, utilizing information technology solutions, creative use of staff and flexible schedules, and obtaining additional resources.Discussion:This study highlights several common challenges programs can address during the program implementation. The most often mentioned strategy was effective communication. Strategies also targeted several components of the organization including organizational functions and processes (e.g., importance of coordination within a team and across disciplines to provide good care), infrastructure (e.g., information technology and human resources), and program fit with priorities in the organization (e.g., leadership support).Implications:Anticipating potential pitfalls of program implementation for future noninstitutional LTSS programs can improve implementation efficiency and program sustainability. Staff at multiple levels in the organization must fully support noninstitutional LTSS programs to address these challenges.
Objectives: To inform geriatric mental health policy by describing the role of behavioral healthcare providers within a geriatric patient-aligned care team (GeriPACT), a patient-centered medical home model of care within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), serving older veterans with chronic disease, functional dependency, cognitive decline, and psychosocial challenges, and/or those who have elder abuse, risk of long-term care placement, or impending disability. Methods: The authors used mixed methods, consisting of a national survey and site visits between July 2016 and February 2017, at VHA outpatient clinics. The participants, 101 GeriPACTs at 44 sites, completed surveys, and 24 medical providers were interviewed. A standardized survey and semi-structured interview guide were developed based on the program handbook, with input from experts in the VHA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care Services, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science Research. Results: Of surveyed GeriPACTs, 42.6% had a mental health provider on the team-a psychiatrist (28.7%) and/or psychologist (23.8%). Of these, the mean was 0.27 full-time
A growing number of healthcare organizations have moved from traditional, institutional nursing home models to ones that emphasize culture change, or resident-centered care (RCC). In 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began implementing a number of changes to VA nursing homes, now called (CLCs), to provide veterans with a more resident-centered and homelike environment. This study aimed to understand the barriers CLC staff face when delivering RCC. Ten CLCs were included on the basis of their performance levels on RCC and quality of care. Semistructured interviews that focused on facility efforts in RCC and quality were conducted with all levels of staff. Interviews were systematically content coded. We found similarities and differences in barriers reported at high- and low-performing sites. Staff across all performance levels cited 5 main categories of barriers to delivering RCC: staffing, resources, acuity of residents, RCC and quality of care conflicts, and regulations. Staff in high-performing sites reported fewer barriers to RCC, although 1 barrier cited was difficulty coordinating RCC across departments. Staff in low-performing sites reported additional categories of barriers related to administrator turnover/lack of guidance, CLC culture/staff morale, and difficulty working with residents and families. As RCC continues to spread, it is important to anticipate the barriers to implementing these practices. Particular focus on regulatory, leadership, organizational, workforce, and process factors may help organizations avoid or reduce barriers to RCC. Given their training and skill set, mental health providers may be uniquely situated to assist staff in overcoming these barriers. (PsycINFO Database Record
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.