Brian S. Mittman

Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: an Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges

One of the most critical issues in mental health services research is the gap between what is known about effective treatment and what is provided to consumers in routine care. Concerted efforts are required to advance implementation science and produce skilled implementation researchers. This paper seeks to advance implementation science in mental health services by over viewing the emergence of implementation as an issue for research, by addressing key issues of language and conceptualization, by presenting a heuristic skeleton model for the study of implementation processes, and by identifying the implications for research and training in this emerging field.

Effectiveness-implementation Hybrid Designs: Combining Elements of Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation Research to Enhance Public Health Impact

Objectives:This study proposes methods for blending design components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research. Such blending can provide benefits over pursuing these lines of research independently; for example, more rapid translational gains, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for decision makers. This study proposes a “hybrid effectiveness-implementation” typology, describes a rationale for their use, outlines the design decisions that must be faced, and provides several real-world examples. Results:An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is one that takes a dual focus a priori in assessing clinical effectiveness and implementation. We propose 3 hybrid types: (1) testing effects of a clinical intervention on relevant outcomes while observing and gathering information on implementation; (2) dual testing of clinical and implementation interventions/strategies; and (3) testing of an implementation strategy while observing and gathering information on the clinical intervention’s impact on relevant outcomes. Conclusions:The hybrid typology proposed herein must be considered a construct still in evolution. Although traditional clinical effectiveness and implementation trials are likely to remain the most common approach to moving a clinical intervention through from efficacy research to public health impact, judicious use of the proposed hybrid designs could speed the translation of research findings into routine practice.

Welcome to Implementation Science

AbstractImplementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and care. This relatively new field includes the study of influences on healthcare professional and organisational behaviour. Implementation Science will encompass all aspects of research in this field, in clinical, community and policy contexts. This online journal will provide a unique platform for this type of research and will publish a broad range of articles – study protocols, debate, theoretical and conceptual articles, rigorous evaluations of the process of change, and articles on methodology and rigorously developed tools – that will enhance the development and refinement of implementation research. No one discipline, research design, or paradigm will be favoured. Implementation Science looks forward to receiving manuscripts that facilitate the continued development of the field, and contribute to healthcare policy and practice.

Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines: Social Influence Strategies and Practitioner Behavior Change

Clinical practice guidelines offer potentially valuable tools for rationalizing health care delivery and improving patient outcomes. Currently, major efforts are under way to develop, test, and refine guidelines for a wide variety of medical conditions and procedures. Although methods for producing guidelines are fairly well understood and continue to improve, experience suggests that guidelines rarely translate directly into changes in practice. For various reasons, including physician resistance or incomplete understanding of the need for guidelines, they have proven difficult to implement. This article describes a broad range of strategies for implementing clinical practice guidelines based on the social influences that affect health practitioner behavior. The article also examines issues surrounding the selection and use of individual strategies or combinations of strategies in specific efforts to improve the quality of health care.

Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: The PCORI perspective

Rigorous methodological standards help to ensure that medical research produces information that is valid and generalizable, and are essential in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). Patient-centeredness refers to the extent to which the preferences, decision-making needs, and characteristics of patients are addressed, and is the key characteristic differentiating PCOR from comparative effectiveness research. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010 created the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), which includes an independent, federally appointed Methodology Committee. The Methodology Committee is charged to develop methodological standards for PCOR. The 4 general areas identified by the committee in which standards will be developed are (1) prioritizing research questions, (2) using appropriate study designs and analyses, (3) incorporating patient perspectives throughout the research continuum, and (4) fostering efficient dissemination and implementation of results. A Congressionally mandated PCORI methodology report (to be issued in its first iteration in May 2012) will begin to provide standards in each of these areas, and will inform future PCORI funding announcements and review criteria. The work of the Methodology Committee is intended to enable generation of information that is relevant and trustworthy for patients, and to enable decisions that improve patient-centered outcomes.

Consensus statement for the management of chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis: proceedings of an expert-panel consensus process.

OBJECTIVE To develop recommendations for the medical and surgical care of women who present with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and are likely to have endometriosis as the underlying cause. DESIGN An expert panel comprised of practicing gynecologists from throughout the United States and experts in consensus guideline development was convened. After completion of a structured literature search and creation of draft algorithms by an executive committee, the expert panel of >50 practicing gynecologists met for a 2-day consensus conference during which the clinical recommendations and algorithms were reviewed, refined, and then ratified by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. PATIENT(S) Women presenting with CPP who are likely to have endometriosis as the underlying cause. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) None. CONCLUSION(S) Chronic pelvic pain frequently occurs secondary to nongynecologic conditions that must be considered in the evaluation of affected women. For women in whom endometriosis is the suspected cause of the pain, laparoscopic confirmation of the diagnosis is unnecessary, and a trial of medical therapy, including second-line therapies such as danazol, GnRH agonists, and progestins, is justified provided that there are no other indications for surgery such as the presence of a suspicious adnexal mass. When surgery is necessary, laparoscopic approaches seem to offer comparable clinical outcomes to those performed via laparotomy, but with reduced morbidity. The balance of evidence supports the use of adjuvant postoperative medical therapy after conservative surgery for CPP. There is some evidence that adjuvant presacral neurectomy adds benefit for midline pain, but currently, there is inadequate evidence to support the use of uterosacral nerve ablation or uterine suspension. Hysterectomy alone has undocumented value in the surgical management of women with endometriosis-associated CPP.

Quality improvement implementation in the nursing home

OBJECTIVE To examine quality improvement (QI) implementation in nursing homes, its association with organizational culture, and its effects on pressure ulcer care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING Primary data were collected from staff at 35 nursing homes maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on measures related to QI implementation and organizational culture. These data were combined with information obtained from abstractions of medical records and analyses of an existing database. STUDY DESIGN A cross-sectional analysis of the association among the different measures was performed. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS Completed surveys containing information on QI implementation, organizational culture, employee satisfaction, and perceived adoption of guidelines were obtained from 1,065 nursing home staff. Adherence to best practices related to pressure ulcer prevention was abstracted from medical records. Risk-adjusted rates of pressure ulcer development were calculated from an administrative database. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Nursing homes differed significantly (p<.001) in their extent of QI implementation with scores on this 1 to 5 scale ranging from 2.98 to 4.08. Quality improvement implementation was greater in those nursing homes with an organizational culture that emphasizes innovation and teamwork. Employees of nursing homes with a greater degree of QI implementation were more satisfied with their jobs (a 1-point increase in QI score was associated with a 0.83 increase on the 5-point satisfaction scale, p<.001) and were more likely to report adoption of pressure ulcer clinical guidelines (a 1-point increase in QI score was associated with a 28 percent increase in number of staff reporting adoption, p<.001). No significant association was found, though, between QI implementation and either adherence to guideline recommendations as abstracted from records or the rate of pressure ulcer development. CONCLUSIONS Quality improvement implementation is most likely to be successful in those VA nursing homes with an underlying culture that promotes innovation. While QI implementation may result in staff who are more satisfied with their jobs and who believe they are providing better care, associations with improved care are uncertain.

An organizational framework and strategic implementation for system-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI Series

BackgroundThe continuing gap between available evidence and current practice in health care reinforces the need for more effective solutions, in particular related to organizational context. Considerable advances have been made within the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) in systematically implementing evidence into practice. These advances have been achieved through a system-level program focused on collaboration and partnerships among policy makers, clinicians, and researchers.The Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) was created to generate research-driven initiatives that directly enhance health care quality within the VA and, simultaneously, contribute to the field of implementation science. This paradigm-shifting effort provided a natural laboratory for exploring organizational change processes. This article describes the underlying change framework and implementation strategy used to operationalize QUERI.Strategic approach to organizational changeQUERI used an evidence-based organizational framework focused on three contextual elements: 1) cultural norms and values, in this case related to the role of health services researchers in evidence-based quality improvement; 2) capacity, in this case among researchers and key partners to engage in implementation research; 3) and supportive infrastructures to reinforce expectations for change and to sustain new behaviors as part of the norm. As part of a QUERI Series in Implementation Science, this article describes the frameworks application in an innovative integration of health services research, policy, and clinical care delivery.ConclusionQUERIs experience and success provide a case study in organizational change. It demonstrates that progress requires a strategic, systems-based effort. QUERIs evidence-based initiative involved a deliberate cultural shift, requiring ongoing commitment in multiple forms and at multiple levels. VAs commitment to QUERI came in the form of visionary leadership, targeted allocation of resources, infrastructure refinements, innovative peer review and study methods, and direct involvement of key stakeholders. Stakeholders included both those providing and managing clinical care, as well as those producing relevant evidence within the health care system. The organizational framework and related implementation interventions used to achieve contextual change resulted in engaged investigators and enhanced uptake of research knowledge. QUERIs approach and progress provide working hypotheses for others pursuing similar system-wide efforts to routinely achieve evidence-based care.

From Understanding Health Care Provider Behavior to Improving Health Care: The Queri Framework for Quality Improvement

Basic science and health care research provide the evidence base for the scientific practice of medicine. Over the past 2 decades, as increasingly refined tools for improving health and health care have been developed, the health care community has attempted to bridge the gap between available tools and actual health care practices. This gap can be bridged only by influencing health care provider behavior. The VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) is a program designed to systematically translate research findings into better health care practices, and thus better health outcomes for enrolled veterans. Integrating provider behavior research considerations and findings into each step of the QUERI process will enhance the effectiveness of the initiative. This article presents a provider behavior research framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating quality improvement interventions within QUERI.

The U.S. training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health

BackgroundThe science of dissemination and implementation (D&I) is advancing the knowledge base for how best to integrate evidence-based interventions within clinical and community settings and how to recast the nature or conduct of the research itself to make it more relevant and actionable in those settings. While the field is growing, there are only a few training programs for D&I research; this is an important avenue to help build the field’s capacity. To improve the United States’ capacity for D&I research, the National Institutes of Health and Veterans Health Administration collaborated to develop a five-day training institute for postdoctoral level applicants aspiring to advance this science.MethodsWe describe the background, goals, structure, curriculum, application process, trainee evaluation, and future plans for the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH).ResultsThe TIDIRH used a five-day residential immersion to maximize opportunities for trainees and faculty to interact. The train-the-trainer-like approach was intended to equip participants with materials that they could readily take back to their home institutions to increase interest and further investment in D&I. The TIDIRH curriculum included a balance of structured large group discussions and interactive small group sessions.Thirty-five of 266 applicants for the first annual training institute were accepted from a variety of disciplines, including psychology (12 trainees); medicine (6 trainees); epidemiology (5 trainees); health behavior/health education (4 trainees); and 1 trainee each from education & human development, health policy and management, health services research, public health studies, public policy and social work, with a maximum of two individuals from any one institution. The institute was rated as very helpful by attendees, and by six months after the institute, a follow-up survey (97% return rate) revealed that 72% had initiated a new grant proposal in D&I research; 28% had received funding, and 77% had used skills from TIDIRH to influence their peers from different disciplines about D&I research through building local research networks, organizing formal presentations and symposia, teaching and by leading interdisciplinary teams to conduct D&I research.ConclusionsThe initial TIDIRH training was judged successful by trainee evaluation at the conclusion of the week’s training and six-month follow-up, and plans are to continue and possibly expand the TIDIRH in coming years. Strengths are seen as the residential format, quality of the faculty and their flexibility in adjusting content to meet trainee needs, and the highlighting of concrete D&I examples by the local host institution, which rotates annually. Lessons learned and plans for future TIDIRH trainings are summarized.