Identification of Implementation Strategies Using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool to Mitigate Barriers in a Primary Care Model for Older Veterans

Abstract

Background and Objectives As the proportion of the U.S. population over 65 and living with complex chronic conditions grows, understanding how to strengthen the implementation of age-sensitive primary care models for older adults, such as the Veterans Health Administration’s Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACT), is critical. However, little is known about which implementation strategies can best help to mitigate barriers to adopting these models. We aimed to identify barriers to GeriPACT implementation and strategies to address these barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) Matching Tool. Research Design and Methods We conducted a content analysis of qualitative responses obtained from a web-based survey sent to GeriPACT members. Using a matrix approach, we grouped similar responses into key barrier categories. After mapping barriers to CFIR, we used the Tool to identify recommended strategies. Results Across 53 Veterans Health Administration hospitals, 32% of team members (n=197) responded to our open-ended question about barriers to GeriPACT care. Barriers identified include Available Resources; Networks & Communication; Design Quality & Packaging; Knowledge & Beliefs; Leadership Engagement; Relative Priority. The Tool recommended 12 Level 1 (e.g., conduct educational meetings) and 24 Level 2 ERIC strategies (e.g., facilitation). Several strategies (e.g., conduct local consensus discussions) cut across multiple barriers. Discussion and Implications Strategies identified by the Tool can inform ongoing development of the GeriPACT model’s effective implementation and sustainment. Incorporating cross-cutting implementation strategies that mitigate multiple barriers at once may further support these next steps.

Strategies for scaling up pre-ART advanced HIV disease screening at a secondary referral hospital - Malawi: a qualitative study

“…These include conduct of on-going trainings, educational meetings among AHD providers and developing educational materials such as posters and guidelines as references for staff with inadequate knowledge to use during screening [15,30]. These strategies are well cited in other implementation research and interventional studies [15,32]. Continuous training leads to improved provider's self-con dence, uniformity and consistent quality of work through adherence to policy guidelines supporting the interventional programme [20].…”

“…It was developed through input from 169 implementation science experts, who selected and ranked up to seven of the 73 ERIC strategies they thought would best address each CFIR barrier [30]. The CFIR-ERIC Matching tool was developed as a way to link these two key resources to help users understand which ERIC implementation strategies will best address CFIR related barriers [32] Study setting…”

Development of an Implementation Blueprint to Scale-Up Contraception Care for Adolescents with Psychiatric Conditions in a Pediatric Hospital

“…Specifically, we used the CFIR-ERIC matching tool to identify strategies that addressed barriers to implementation that were identified by our Research Advisory Board. Other studies have demonstrated the usefulness of the CFIR-ERIC matching tool ( Shin et al, 2022 ; Weir et al, 2021 ), although the extent to which this tool generates the most effective and comprehensive set of implementation strategies warrants additional testing. In our work, we complemented our use of the CFIR-ERIC matching tool with an activity log to capture strategies used in real time.…”

Identification and development of implementation strategies: the important role of codesign

“…For each strategy, the tool provides the percentage of experts who ranked that particular strategy in their top seven. This percentage can be interpreted at two levels of endorsed strategies, namely, Level 1 endorsed ERIC strategies (i.e., more than 50% of the experts ranked this as one of their top seven strategies for that barrier) and Level 2 endorsed ERIC strategies (i.e., between 20% and 50% of the experts ranked this as one of their top seven strategies for that barrier) ( 5 , 23 ). The research group determined that, for the continuation of this study, the top three strategies with the highest agreement or three strategies with an agreement higher than 50% would be used.…”