Mona J. Ritchie

Outcomes of a Partnered Facilitation Strategy to Implement Primary Care-Mental Health

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDImplementing new programs and practices is challenging, even when they are mandated. Implementation Facilitation (IF) strategies that focus on partnering with sites show promise for addressing these challenges.OBJECTIVEOur aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of an external/internal IF strategy within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandate of Primary Care–Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI).DESIGNThis was a quasi-experimental, Hybrid Type III study. Generalized estimating equations assessed differences across sites.PARTICIPANTSPatients and providers at seven VA primary care clinics receiving the IF intervention and national support and seven matched comparison clinics receiving national support only participated in the study.INTERVENTIONWe used a highly partnered IF strategy incorporating evidence-based implementation interventions.MAIN MEASURESWe evaluated the IF strategy using VA administrative data and RE-AIM framework measures for two 6-month periods.KEY RESULTSEvaluation of RE-AIM measures from the first 6-month period indicated that PC patients at IF clinics had nine times the odds (OR=8.93, p<0.001) of also being seen in PC-MHI (Reach) compared to patients at non-IF clinics. PC providers at IF clinics had seven times the odds (OR=7.12, p=0.029) of referring patients to PC-MHI (Adoption) than providers at non-IF clinics, and a greater proportion of providers’ patients at IF clinics were referred to PC-MHI (Adoption) compared to non-IF clinics (β=0.027, p<0.001). Compared to PC patients at non-IF sites, patients at IF clinics did not have lower odds (OR=1.34, p=0.232) of being referred for first-time mental health specialty clinic visits (Effectiveness), or higher odds (OR=1.90, p=0.350) of receiving same-day access (Implementation). Assessment of program sustainability (Maintenance) was conducted by repeating this analysis for a second 6-month time period. Maintenance analyses results were similar to the earlier period.CONCLUSIONThe addition of a highly partnered IF strategy to national level support resulted in greater Reach and Adoption of the mandated PC-MHI initiative, thereby increasing patient access to VA mental health care.

Use of Electronic Medical Record Data for Quality Improvement in Schizophrenia Treatment

An understanding of the strengths and limitations of automated data is valuable when using administrative or clinical databases to monitor and improve the quality of health care. This study discusses the feasibility and validity of using data electronically extracted from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) computer database (VistA) to monitor guideline performance for inpatient and outpatient treatment of schizophrenia. The authors also discuss preliminary results and their experience in applying these methods to monitor antipsychotic prescribing using the South Central VA Healthcare Network (SCVAHCN) Data Warehouse as a tool for quality improvement.

Human subjects protection issues in QUERI implementation research: QUERI Series.

BackgroundHuman Subjects protections approaches, specifically those relating to research review board oversight, vary throughout the world. While all are designed to protect participants involved in research, the structure and specifics of these institutional review boards (IRBs) can and do differ. This variation affects all types of research, particularly implementation research.MethodsIn 2001, we began a series of inter-related studies on implementing evidence-based collaborative care for depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care. We have submitted more than 100 IRB applications, amendments, and renewals, and in doing so, we have interacted with 13 VA and University IRBs across the United States (U.S.). We present four overarching IRB-related themes encountered throughout the implementation of our projects, and within each theme, identify key challenges and suggest approaches that have proved useful. Where applicable, we showcase process aids developed to assist in resolving a particular IRB challenge.ResultsThere are issues unique to implementation research, as this type of research may not fit within the traditional Human Subjects paradigm used to assess clinical trials. Risks in implementation research are generally related to breaches of confidentiality, rather than health risks associated with traditional clinical trials. The implementation-specific challenges discussed are: external validity considerations, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, risk-benefit issues, the multiple roles of researchers and subjects, and system-level unit of analysis.DiscussionSpecific aspects of implementation research interact with variations in knowledge, procedures, and regulatory interpretations across IRBs to affect the implementation and study of best methods to increase evidence-based practice. Through lack of unambiguous guidelines and local liability concerns, IRBs are often at risk of applying both variable and inappropriate or unnecessary standards to implementation research that are not consistent with the spirit of the Belmont Report (a summary of basic ethical principles identified by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research), and which impede the conduct of evidence-based quality improvement research. While there are promising developments in the IRB community, it is incumbent upon implementation researchers to interact with IRBs in a manner that assists appropriate risk-benefit determinations and helps prevent the process from having a negative impact on efforts to reduce the lag in implementing best practices.

Research and Services Partnerships: Responding to Needs of Clinical Operations Partners: Transferring Implementation Facilitation Knowledge and Skills

This column describes a facilitation strategy that incorporates evidence-based implementation knowledge and practice-based wisdom. The authors also describe a partnership between research and clinical operations leaders in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to bridge the gap between implementation knowledge and its use. The initial product of the partnership, the Implementation Facilitation Training Manual: Using External and Internal Facilitation to Improve Care in the Veterans Health Administration, is a resource that can be used by others to guide implementation efforts.

Balancing health care evidence and art to meet clinical needs: policymakers' perspectives

Rationale, aims and objectives Although many believe that evidence-based practice (EBP) has great potential, critics have identified limitations including a focus on randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence to the exclusion of other evidence types and a disregard for the art of medicine. Others have argued, however, that proper application of EBP involves reasoned consideration of a wide variety of information; thus, the dichotomy between medical science and art may be false. We explore the views of executive-level policymakers from the Veterans Health Administration, a leader in the EBP movement, regarding what constitutes evidence and the relative importance of evidence versus practical needs when determining clinical policy. Method We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews and performed a content analysis. Results Although informants generally believed in the value of EBP and the role of RCTs within it, they also valued other types of evidence. Further, they had concerns that were sometimes antithetical with strict adherence to an evidence-based approach. These included practical concerns, fit with organizational values and with local circumstances, resources, political pressures and patient needs. They were especially concerned about how to address medical conditions that affect many individuals or high-risk populations that have no evidence-based treatment. Conclusion When possible, health care practice should be evidence-based. When this is not possible, health care providers must turn to the art of medicine by using consensus-based best practices. Further, it is important for policymakers and researchers to work in concert to develop EBPs that are practical and meet needs.

Improving care quality through hybrid implementation/effectiveness studies: Best practices in design, methods, and measures

Improving care quality through hybrid implementation/effectiveness studies: Best practices in design, methods, and measures Amy N Cohen, Alison B Hamilton, Mona Ritchie, Brian S Mittman, JoAnn E Kirchner , Gail E Wyatt, John C Fortney, Gerhard Hellemann, Honghu Liu, Geoffrey M Curran, Fiona Whelan, Alicia M Eccles, Louise E Parker, Kirk McNagny, Craig S Hutchinson, Annapurni B Teague, Christopher Reist, Alexander S Young

Using implementation facilitation to foster clinical practice quality and adherence to evidence in challenged settings: a qualitative study

BackgroundWe evaluated a facilitation strategy to help clinical sites likely to experience challenges implement evidence-based Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) care models within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative. This article describes our assessment of whether implementation facilitation (IF) can foster development of high quality PC-MHI programs that adhere to evidence, are sustainable and likely to improve clinical practices and outcomes.MethodsUtilizing a matched pair design, we conducted a qualitative descriptive evaluation of the IF strategy in sixteen VA primary care clinics. To assess program quality and adherence to evidence, we conducted one-hour structured telephone interviews, at two time points, with clinicians and leaders who knew the most about the clinics’ programs. We then created structured summaries of the interviews that VA national PC-MHI experts utilized to rate the programs on four dimensions (overall quality, adherence to evidence, sustainability and level of improvement).ResultsAt first assessment, seven of eight IF sites and four of eight comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Our qualitative assessment suggested that experts rated IF sites’ programs higher than comparison sites’ programs with one exception. At final assessment, all eight IF but only five comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Again, experts rated IF sites’ programs higher than their matched comparison sites with one exception. Over time, all ratings improved in five of seven IF sites and two of three comparison sites.ConclusionsImplementing complex evidence-based programs, particularly in settings that lack infrastructure, resources and support for such efforts, is challenging. Findings suggest that a blend of external expert and internal regional facilitation strategies that implementation scientists have developed and tested can improve PC-MHI program uptake, quality and adherence to evidence in primary care clinics with these challenges. However, not all sites showed these improvements. To be successful, facilitators likely need at least a moderate level of leaders’ support, including provision of basic resources. Additionally, we found that IF and strength of leadership structure may have a synergistic effect on ability to implement higher quality and evidence-based programs.

Enhancing implementation of measurement-based mental health care in primary care: a mixed-methods randomized effectiveness evaluation of implementation facilitation

BackgroundMental health care lags behind other forms of medical care in its reliance on subjective clinician assessment. Although routine use of standardized patient-reported outcome measures, measurement-based care (MBC), can improve patient outcomes and engagement, clinician efficiency, and, collaboration across care team members, full implementation of this complex practice change can be challenging. This study seeks to understand whether and how an intensive facilitation strategy can be effective in supporting the implementation of MBC. Implementation researchers partnering with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) leaders are conducting the study within the context of a national initiative to support MBC implementation throughout VA mental health services. This study will focus specifically on VA Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) programs.MethodsA mixed-methods, multiple case study design will include 12 PCMHI sites recruited from the 23 PCMHI programs that volunteered to participate in the VA national initiative. Guided by a study partnership panel, sites are clustered into similar groups using administrative metrics. Site pairs are recruited from within these groups. Within pairs, sites are randomized to the implementation facilitation strategy (external facilitation plus QI team) or standard VA national support. The implementation strategy provides an external facilitator and MBC experts who work with intervention sites to form a QI team, develop an implementation plan, and, identify and overcome barriers to implementation. The RE-AIM framework guides the evaluation of the implementation facilitation strategy which will utilize data from administrative, medical record, and primary qualitative and quantitative sources. Guided by the iPARIHS framework and using a mixed methods approach, we will also examine factors associated with implementation success. Finally, we will explore whether implementation of MBC increases primary care team communication and function related to the care of mental health conditions.DiscussionMBC has significant potential to improve mental health care but it represents a major change in practice. Understanding factors that can support MBC implementation is essential to attaining its potential benefits and spreading these benefits across the health care system.