Abstract

BackgroundThough the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers’ shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding.ResultsFive community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change.ConclusionThis analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Highlights

  • MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA

  • Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts

  • Bunce et al Implementation Science (2020) 15:87 (Continued from previous page). This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change

Read more

Summary

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Study setting and design The SPREAD-NET study compared the effectiveness of increasingly intensive implementation strategies at supporting community health centers’ adoption of a suite of clinical decision support tools called the cardiovascular disease (CVD) bundle. The CVD bundle included point-of-care alerts and panel management data tools promoting cardioprotective prescribing guidelines for patients with diabetes [28]. It was activated in the study clinics’ shared EHR in June 2015, and modified in May 2017, when CVD risk calculation [35] was added to the logic underlying its alerts. The community health centers were cluster-randomized into one of three arms; the arms received increasingly intensive implementation support designed to promote uptake of the CVD bundle (Table 1) (we recognize that clinical decision support can be considered an implementation strategy [27]; here, the cVD bundle is the innovation targeted by he strategies under comparison)

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call