Distance as a barrier to healthcare was not uniformly defined. Rather, its importance was relative to the health status and resources of patients, complexity of service provided, and urgency of service needed. Improved transportation, flexible fee-based services, more structured communication mechanisms, and integration with community resources will improve access to care and overall health status for rural veterans.

BackgroundThe use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice.MethodsEvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives’ implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts.ResultsThirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale.ConclusionsFindings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts.Trial registrationRegistered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02560428).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0876-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched the EvidenceNOW Initiative to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care in smaller primary care practices. AHRQ funded eight grantees (seven regional Cooperatives and one independent national evaluation) to participate in EvidenceNOW. The national evaluation examines quality improvement efforts and outcomes for more than 1500 small primary care practices (restricted to those with fewer than ten physicians per clinic). Examples of external support include practice facilitation, expert consultation, performance feedback, and educational materials and activities. This paper describes the study protocol for the EvidenceNOW national evaluation, which is called Evaluating System Change to Advance Learning and Take Evidence to Scale (ESCALATES).MethodsThis prospective observational study will examine the portfolio of EvidenceNOW Cooperatives using both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data include: online implementation diaries, observation and interviews at Cooperatives and practices, and systematic assessment of context from the perspective of Cooperative team members. Quantitative data include: practice-level performance on clinical quality measures (aspirin prescribing, blood pressure and cholesterol control, and smoking cessation; ABCS) collected by Cooperatives from electronic health records (EHRs); practice and practice member surveys to assess practice capacity and other organizational and structural characteristics; and systematic tracking of intervention delivery. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses will be conducted to examine how Cooperatives organize to provide external support to practices, to compare effectiveness of the dissemination and implementation approaches they implement, and to examine how regional variations and other organization and contextual factors influence implementation and effectiveness.DiscussionESCALATES is a national evaluation of an ambitious large-scale dissemination and implementation effort focused on transforming smaller primary care practices. Insights will help to inform the design of national health care practice extension systems aimed at supporting practice transformation efforts in the USA.Clinical Trial Registration NCT02560428 (09/21/15)

Purpose: Practice facilitators ("facilitators") can play an important role in supporting primary care practices in performing quality improvement (QI), but they need complete and accurate clinical performance data from practices' electronic health records (EHR) to help them set improvement priorities, guide clinical change, and monitor progress. Here, we describe the strategies facilitators use to help practices perform QI when complete or accurate performance data are not available.Methods: Seven regional cooperatives enrolled approximately 1500 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices and 136 facilitators in EvidenceNOW, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's initiative to improve cardiovascular preventive services. The national evaluation team analyzed qualitative data from online diaries, site visit field notes, and interviews to discover how facilitators worked with practices on EHR data challenges to obtain and use data for QI.Results: We found facilitators faced practice-level EHR data challenges, such as a lack of clinical performance data, partial or incomplete clinical performance data, and inaccurate clinical performance data. We found that facilitators responded to these challenges, respectively, by using other data sources or tools to fill in for missing data, approximating performance reports and generating patient lists, and teaching practices how to document care and confirm performance measures. In addition, facilitators helped practices communicate with EHR vendors or health systems in requesting data they needed. Overall, facilitators tailored strategies to fit the individual practice and helped build data skills and trust.Conclusion: Facilitators can use a range of strategies to help practices perform data-driven QI when performance data are inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. Support is necessary to help practices, particularly those with EHR data challenges, build their capacity for conducting data-driven QI that is required of them for participating in practice transformation and performance-based payment programs. It is questionable how practices with data challenges will perform in programs without this kind of support. (J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:398 -409.)

BackgroundThe US Public Health Service smoking cessation practice guideline specifically recommends that physicians and nurses strongly advise their patients who use tobacco to quit, but the best approach for attaining this goal in the emergency department (ED) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to characterize emergency physicians’ (EPs) and nurses’ (ENs) perceptions of cessation counseling and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of the 5 A’s framework (Ask-Advise-Assess-Assist-Arrange) in the ED.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured, face-to-face interviews of 11 EPs and 19 ENs following a pre-post implementation trial of smoking cessation guidelines in two study EDs. We used purposeful sampling to target EPs and ENs with different attitudes toward cessation counseling, based on their responses to a written survey (Decisional Balance Questionnaire). Conventional content analysis was used to inductively characterize the issues raised by study participants and to construct a coding structure, which was then applied to study transcripts.ResultsThe main findings of this study converged upon three overarching domains: 1) reactions to the intervention; 2) perceptions of patients’ receptivity to cessation counseling; and 3) perspectives on ED cessation counseling and preventive care. ED staff expressed ambivalence toward the implementation of smoking cessation guidelines. Both ENs and EPs agreed that the delivery of smoking cessation counseling is important, but that it is not always practical in the ED on account of time constraints, the competing demands of acute care, and resistance from patients. Participants also called attention to the need for improved role clarity and teamwork when implementing the 5 A’s in the ED.ConclusionsThere are numerous challenges to the implementation of smoking cessation guidelines in the ED. ENs are generally willing to take the lead in offering brief cessation counseling, but their efforts need to be reinforced by EPs. ED systems need to address workflow, teamwork, and practice policies that facilitate prescription of smoking cessation medication, referral for cessation counseling, and follow-up in primary care. The results of this qualitative evaluation can be used to guide the design of future ED intervention studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT00756704

VA system barriers hinder communication between providers, possibly resulting in fragmented care. Addressing these barriers will potentially improve patient safety and satisfaction.

No abstract