BackgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common and highly morbid illness. New medications that have much higher cure rates have become the new evidence-based practice in the field. Understanding the implementation of these new medications nationally provides an opportunity to advance the understanding of the role of implementation strategies in clinical outcomes on a large scale. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study defined discrete implementation strategies and clustered these strategies into groups. The present evaluation assessed the use of these strategies and clusters in the context of HCV treatment across the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, the largest provider of HCV care nationally.MethodsA 73-item survey was developed and sent to all VA sites treating HCV via electronic survey, to assess whether or not a site used each ERIC-defined implementation strategy related to employing the new HCV medication in 2014. VA national data regarding the number of Veterans starting on the new HCV medications at each site were collected. The associations between treatment starts and number and type of implementation strategies were assessed.ResultsA total of 80 (62%) sites responded. Respondents endorsed an average of 25 ± 14 strategies. The number of treatment starts was positively correlated with the total number of strategies endorsed (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). Quartile of treatment starts was significantly associated with the number of strategies endorsed (p < 0.01), with the top quartile endorsing a median of 33 strategies, compared to 15 strategies in the lowest quartile. There were significant differences in the types of strategies endorsed by sites in the highest and lowest quartiles of treatment starts. Four of the 10 top strategies for sites in the top quartile had significant correlations with treatment starts compared to only 1 of the 10 top strategies in the bottom quartile sites. Overall, only 3 of the top 15 most frequently used strategies were associated with treatment.ConclusionsThese results suggest that sites that used a greater number of implementation strategies were able to deliver more evidence-based treatment in HCV. The current assessment also demonstrates the feasibility of electronic self-reporting to evaluate ERIC strategies on a large scale. These results provide initial evidence for the clinical relevance of the ERIC strategies in a real-world implementation setting on a large scale. This is an initial step in identifying which strategies are associated with the uptake of evidence-based practices in nationwide healthcare systems.

No abstract

Background: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares for more patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) than any other US health care system. We tracked the implementation strategies that VA sites used to implement highly effective new treatments for HCV with the aim of uncovering how combinations of implementation strategies influenced the uptake of the HCV treatment innovation. We applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to uncover causal dependencies and identify difference-making strategy configurations, and to distinguish higher from lower HCV treating sites.Methods: We surveyed providers to assess VA sites' use of 73 implementation strategies to promote HCV treatment in the fiscal year 2015. CCMs were used to identify strategy configurations that uniquely distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites.Results: From the 73 possible implementation strategies, CCMs identified 5 distinct strategy configurations, or "solution paths." These were comprised of 10 individual strategies that collectively explained 80% of the sites with higher HCV treatment starts with 100% consistency. Using any one of the following 5 solution paths was sufficient to produce higher treatment starts: (1) technical assistance; (2) engaging in a learning collaborative AND designating leaders; (3) site visits AND outreach to patients to promote uptake and adherence; (4) developing resource sharing agreements AND an implementation blueprint; OR (5) creating new clinical teams AND sharing quality improvement knowledge with other sites AND engaging patients. There was equifinality in that the presence of any one of the 5 solution paths was sufficient for higher treatment starts.Conclusions: Five strategy configurations distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites with 100% consistency. CCMs represent a methodological advancement that can help inform highyield implementation strategy selection and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future implementation efforts.

Background To increase the uptake of evidence-based treatments for hepatitis C (HCV), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Hepatitis Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative. Teams of providers were tasked with choosing implementation strategies to improve HCV care. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess how site-level implementation strategies were associated with HCV treatment initiation and how the use of implementation strategies and their association with HCV treatment changed over time. Methods A key HCV provider at each VA site ( N = 130) was asked in two consecutive fiscal years (FYs) to complete an online survey examining the use of 73 implementation strategies organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The number of Veterans initiating treatment for HCV, or “treatment starts,” at each site was captured using national data. Providers reported whether the use of each implementation strategy was due to the HIT Collaborative. Results Of 130 sites, 80 (62%) responded in Year 1 (FY15) and 105 (81%) responded in Year 2 (FY16). Respondents endorsed a median of 27 (IQR19–38) strategies in Year 2. The strategies significantly more likely to be chosen in Year 2 included tailoring strategies to deliver HCV care, promoting adaptability, sharing knowledge between sites, and using mass media. The total number of treatment starts was significantly positively correlated with total number of strategies endorsed in both years. In Years 1 and 2, respectively, 28 and 26 strategies were significantly associated with treatment starts; 12 strategies overlapped both years, 16 were unique to Year 1, and 14 were unique to Year 2. Strategies significantly associated with treatment starts shifted between Years 1 and 2. Pre-implementation strategies in the “training/educating,” “interactive assistance,” and “building stakeholder interrelationships” clusters were more likely to be significantly associated with treatment starts in Year 1, while strategies in the “evaluative and iterative” and “adapting and tailoring” clusters were more likely to be associated with treatment starts in Year 2. Approximately half of all strategies were attributed to the HIT Collaborative. Conclusions These results suggest that measuring implementation strategies over time is a useful way to catalog implementation of an evidence-based practice over time and across settings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0881-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete "case reviews" for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates. Methods: Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility's use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews. Results: Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.59).