Expert Recommendations For Implementing Change Research Articles

Spanish translation of the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation

BackgroundMost implementation science resources (e.g., taxonomies) are published in English. Linguistic inaccessibility creates a barrier to the conduct of implementation research among non-English-speaking populations, so translation of resources is needed. Translation into Spanish can facilitate widespread reach, given the large proportion of Spanish speakers around the world. This research aimed to systematically translate the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) compilation into Spanish as an exemplar for the linguistic translation process.MethodsUsing the World Health Organization guidelines, this work translated the ERIC compilation strategy names, short definitions, and thematic clusters through a three-step process: 1) forward translation into Spanish by a native Spanish-speaking implementation scientist, 2) back-translation into English by a bilingual global health researcher, and 3) piloting via virtual focus group discussions with bilingual researchers not conducting implementation research. To achieve a generalizable translation, recruitment targeted a multicultural group of Spanish-speaking researchers. At the conclusion of each step, the transdisciplinary research team (N = 7) met to discuss discrepancies and refine translations. The Spanish version of the ERIC compilation was finalized through group consensus. Reflections from research team meetings and focus group discussions were synthesized qualitatively.ResultsGiven that dialectical nuances exist between Spanish-speaking regions, efforts prioritized universally accepted terminology. Team discussions focused on difficult translations, word choice, and clarity of concepts. Seven researchers participated in two focus groups, where discussion surrounded clarity of concepts, alternative word choice for Spanish translations, linguistic formality, grammar, and conciseness. Translation difficulties highlighted lack of precision in implementation science terminology, and the lack of conceptual clarity of words underscored limitations in the application of the compilation.ConclusionsThe work demonstrated the feasibility of translating implementation science resources. As one of the first systematic efforts to translate implementation resources, this study can serve as a model for additional efforts, including translation into other languages and the expansion to conceptual modifications. Further, this work yielded insights into the need to provide conceptual clarity in implementation science terminology. Importantly, the development of Spanish resources will increase access to conduct implementation research among Spanish-speaking populations.

A streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies: recommendations to speed the translation of research to practice

BackgroundImplementation science emerged from the recognized need to speed the translation of effective interventions into practice. In the US, the science has evolved to place an ever-increasing focus on implementation strategies. The long list of implementation strategies, terminology used to name strategies, and time required to tailor strategies all may contribute to delays in translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. To speed EBI translation, we propose a streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies.Main textA multidisciplinary team of eight scholars conducted an exercise to sort the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies into three classes: implementation processes (n = 25), capacity-building strategies (n = 20), and integration strategies (n = 28). Implementation processes comprise best practices that apply across EBIs and throughout the phases of implementation from exploration through sustainment (e.g., conduct local needs assessment). Capacity-building strategies target either general or EBI-specific knowledge and skills (e.g., conduct educational meetings). Integration strategies include “methods and techniques” that target barriers or facilitators to implementation of a specific EBI beyond those targeted by capacity building. Building on these three classes, the team collaboratively developed recommendations for a pragmatic, five-step approach that begins with the implementation processes and capacity-building strategies practice-settings are already using prior to tailoring integration strategies. A case study is provided to illustrate use of the five-step approach to tailor the strategies needed to implement a transitional care intervention in skilled nursing facilities.ConclusionsOur proposed approach streamlines the formative work required prior to implementing an EBI by building on practice partner preferences, expertise, and infrastructure while also making the most of prior research findings.

Quality improvement lessons learned from National Implementation of the "Patient Safety Events in Community Care: Reporting, Investigation, and Improvement Guidebook".

To evaluate nationwide implementation of a Guidebook designed to standardize safety practices across VA-delivered and VA-purchased care (i.e., Community Care) and identify lessons learned and strategies to improve them. Qualitative data collected from key informants at 18 geographically diverse VA facilities across 17 Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs). We conducted semi-structured interviews from 2019 to 2022 with VISN Patient Safety Officers (PSOs) and VA facility patient safety and quality managers (PSMs and QMs) and VA Facility Community Care (CC) staff to assess lessons learned by examining organizational contextual factors affecting Guidebook implementation based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were conducted virtually with 45 facility staff and 10 VISN PSOs. Using directed content analysis, we identified CFIR factors affecting implementation. These factors were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy compilation to identify lessons learned that could be useful to our operational partners in improving implementation processes. We met frequently with our partners to discuss findings and plan next steps. Six CFIR constructs were identified as both facilitators and barriers to Guidebook implementation: (1) planning for implementation; (2) engaging key knowledge holders; (3) available resources; (4) networks and communications; (5) culture; and (6) external policies. The two CFIR constructs that were only barriers included: (1) cosmopolitanism and (2) executing implementation. Our findings suggest several important lessons: (1) engage all collaborators involved in implementation; (2) ensure end-users have opportunities to provide feedback; (3) describe collaborators' purpose and roles/responsibilities clearly at the start; (4) communicate information widely and repeatedly; and (5) identify how multiple high priorities can be synergistic. This evaluation will help our partners and key VA leadership to determine next steps and future strategies for improving Guidebook implementation through collaboration with VA staff.

Partnership building for scale-up in the Veteran Sponsorship Initiative: Strategies for harnessing collaboration to accelerate impact in suicide prevention.

To evaluate the implementation and trust-building strategies associated with successful partnership formation in scale-up of the Veteran Sponsorship Initiative (VSI), an evidence-based suicide prevention intervention enhancing connection to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other resources during the military-to-civilian transition period. Scaling VSI nationally required establishing partnerships across VA, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and diverse public and private Veteran-serving organizations. We assessed partnerships formalized with a signed memorandum during pre- and early implementation periods (October 2020-October 2022). To capture implementation activities, we conducted 39 periodic reflections with implementation team members over the same period. We conducted a qualitative case study evaluating the number of formalized VSI partnerships alongside directed qualitative content analysis of periodic reflections data using Atlas.ti 22.0. We first independently coded reflections for implementation strategies, following the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, and for trust-building strategies, following the Theoretical Model for Trusting Relationships and Implementation; a second round of inductive coding explored emergent themes associated with partnership formation. During this period, VSI established 12 active partnerships with public and non-profit agencies. The VSI team reported using 35 ERIC implementation strategies, including building a coalition and developing educational and procedural documents, and trust-building strategies including demonstrating competence and credibility, frequent interactions, and responsiveness. Cultural competence in navigating DoD and VA and accepting and persisting through conflict also appeared to support scale-up. VSI's partnership-formation efforts leveraged a variety of implementation strategies, particularly around strengthening stakeholder interrelationships and refining procedures for coordination and communication. VSI implementation activities were further characterized by an intentional focus on trust-building over time. VSI's rapid scale-up highlights the value of partnership formation for achieving coordinated interventions to address complex problems.

Improving acute myocardial infarction care in northern Tanzania: barrier identification and implementation strategy mapping

BackgroundEvidence-based care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reduces morbidity and mortality. Prior studies in Tanzania identified substantial gaps in the uptake of evidence-based AMI care. Implementation science has been used to improve uptake of evidence-based AMI care in high-income settings, but interventions to improve quality of AMI care have not been studied in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsPurposive sampling was used to recruit participants from key stakeholder groups (patients, providers, and healthcare administrators) in northern Tanzania. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interview transcripts were coded to identify barriers to AMI care, using the 39 CFIR constructs. Barriers relevant to emergency department (ED) AMI care were retained, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool was used to match barriers with Level 1 recommendations for targeted implementation strategies.ResultsThirty key stakeholders, including 10 patients, 10 providers, and 10 healthcare administrators were enrolled. Thematic analysis identified 11 barriers to ED-based AMI care: complexity of AMI care, cost of high-quality AMI care, local hospital culture, insufficient diagnostic and therapeutic resources, inadequate provider training, limited patient knowledge of AMI, need for formal implementation leaders, need for dedicated champions, failure to provide high-quality care, poor provider-patient communication, and inefficient ED systems. Seven of these barriers had 5 strong ERIC recommendations: access new funding, identify and prepare champions, conduct educational meetings, develop educational materials, and distribute educational materials.ConclusionsMultiple barriers across several domains limit the uptake of evidence-based AMI care in northern Tanzania. The CFIR-ERIC mapping approach identified several targeted implementation strategies for addressing these barriers. A multi-component intervention is planned to improve uptake of evidence-based AMI care in Tanzania.

An implementation strategy postmortem method developed in the VA rural Transitions Nurse Program to inform spread and scale-up.

High-quality implementation evaluations report on intervention fidelity and adaptations made, but a practical process for evaluating implementation strategies is needed. A retrospective method for evaluating implementation strategies is also required as prospective methods can be resource intensive. This study aimed to establish an implementation strategy postmortem method to identify the implementation strategies used, when, and their perceived importance. We used the rural Transitions Nurse Program (TNP) as a case study, a national care coordination intervention implemented at 11 hospitals over three years. The postmortem used a retrospective, mixed method, phased approach. Implementation team and front-line staff characterized the implementation strategies used, their timing, frequency, ease of use, and their importance to implementation success. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation, the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative phases, and Proctor and colleagues' guidance were used to operationalize the strategies. Survey data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed using matrix content analysis. The postmortem method identified 45 of 73 ERIC strategies introduced, including 41 during pre-implementation, 37 during implementation, and 27 during sustainment. External facilitation, centralized technical assistance, and clinical supervision were ranked as the most important and frequently used strategies. Implementation strategies were more intensively applied in the beginning of the study and tapered over time. The postmortem method identified that more strategies were used in TNP than planned and identified the most important strategies from the perspective of the implementation team and front-line staff. The findings can inform other implementation studies as well as dissemination of the TNP intervention.

Tailored implementation of national recommendations on fall prevention among older adults in municipalities in Norway (FALLPREVENT trial): a study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial

BackgroundDespite substantial research evidence indicating the effectiveness of a range of interventions to prevent falls, uptake into routine clinical practice has been limited by several implementation challenges. The complexity of fall prevention in municipality health care underlines the importance of flexible implementation strategies tailored both to general determinants of fall prevention and to local contexts. This cluster-randomised trial (RCT) investigates the effectiveness of a tailored intervention to implement national recommendations on fall prevention among older home-dwelling adults compared to usual practice on adherence to the recommendations in health professionals.MethodsTwenty-five municipalities from four regions in Norway will be randomised to intervention or control arms. Each municipality cluster will recruit up to 30 health professionals to participate in the study as responders. The tailored implementation intervention comprises four components: (1) identifying local structures for implementation, (2) establishing a resource team from different professions and levels, (3) promoting knowledge on implementation and fall prevention and (4) supporting the implementation process. Each of these components includes several implementation activities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to categorise determinants of the implementation process and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) will guide the matching of barriers to implementation strategies. The primary outcome measure for the study will be health professionals’ adherence to the national recommendations on fall prevention measured by a questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include injurious falls, the feasibility of the intervention, the experiences of the implementation process and intervention costs. Measurements will be carried out at baseline in August 2023, post-intervention in May 2024 and at a follow-up in November 2024.DiscussionThis study will provide evidence on the effectiveness, intervention costs and underlying processes of change of tailored implementation of evidence-based fall prevention recommendations.Trial registrationThe trial is registered in the Open Science Registry: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JQ9T5. Registered: March 03, 2023.

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies

BackgroundEvaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.MethodsA scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.ResultsOf the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to “train and educate stakeholders” (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to “develop stakeholder interrelationships” (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.ConclusionsThis scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

A feasibility study of provider-level implementation strategies to improve access to colorectal cancer screening for patients with schizophrenia: ACCESS2 (N-EQUITY 2104) trial

BackgroundPeople with schizophrenia have a lower colorectal screening rate than the general population. A previous study reported an intervention using case management to encourage colorectal cancer screening for patients with schizophrenia in psychiatric outpatient settings. In this feasibility study, we developed provider-level implementation strategies and evaluated the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial in terms of the penetration of the intervention assessed at the patient level. Additionally, we examined the fidelity of strategies to implement the intervention at the provider level in a routine clinical psychiatric setting.MethodsThis was a multicenter, single-arm feasibility study with medical staff at psychiatric hospitals in Japan. The provider-level implementation strategies developed in this study included three key elements (organizing an implementation team appointed by the facility director, interactive assistance using a clear guide that outlines who in the hospital should do what, and developing accessible educational materials) to overcome major barriers to implementation of the intervention and four additional elements (progress monitoring, joint meetings and information sharing among participating sites, adaptation of encouragement methods to specific contexts, and education of on-site staff), with reference to the elements identified in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC). The feasibility of the strategies was evaluated by the proportion of patients who were eligible for encouragement (patients with schizophrenia aged 40, 50, or 60) who received encouragement. We set the goal of providing encouragement to at least 40% of eligible patients at each site.ResultsTwo public and four private psychiatric hospitals in Okayama and Shimane prefectures participated in this study. Regarding fidelity, all elements of the strategies were conducted as planned. Following the procedures in the guide, each team prepared and provided encouragement according to their own facility and region. Penetration, defined as the proportion of eligible patients who received encouragement, ranged from 33.3 to 100%; five of the six facilities achieved the target proportion.ConclusionsThe provider-level implementation strategies to implement encouragement were feasible in terms of penetration of the intervention assessed at the patient level. The results support the feasibility of proceeding with a future definitive trial of these strategies.Trial registrationjRCT, jRCT1060220026. Registered on 06/04/2022.

A rigorous, stepwise procedure for multi-stakeholder design of implementation actions

Implementation of evidence-based practice necessitates identification of barriers and facilitators as well as using effective implementation strategies tailored to these barriers and facilitators. Collaboration with stakeholders is an essential aspect of implementation, but there is limited guidance on how to combine input from stakeholders with other sources of information when designing implementation actions. In this study, we adapt and evaluate a novel stepwise procedure (based on Knapp et al, 2022) to combine multi-stakeholder input with best available evidence on matching barriers to implementation strategies.
 In the context of an implementation project for physiotherapist led Cognitive Behavior therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) in patients with Knee Osteoarthritis (OA), stakeholders (physiotherapists (PTs), patients with OA and comorbid insomnia, general practitioners (GPs), orthopedic surgeons (OS), rheumatologists, and psychologists with expertise in CBT-I) participate in a rigorous, iterative process of identifying and prioritizing barriers, followed by a selection of implementation strategies to address identified barriers. In this process, stakeholder discussion or survey input is alternated with feedback from the research team, who are providing a summary of stakeholder perspectives and provide input based on findings from the implementation science literature. The process integrates aspects of user-centered design (Dopp et al., 2018; Dopp et al., 2020), a modified version of Delphi approach (Hasson et al., 2000), a participatory approach (Jagosh et al., 2012), and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) protocol (Powell et al., 2015; Waltz et al., 2015).
 Compared to Knapp et al. (2022) we have streamlined the development process into a six-step alternating procedure. Furthermore, we have broadened the categories of stakeholders participating in the stakeholder discussions, including patients and health care providers of different disciplines. In order to facilitate representation of patients and different disciplines of health care providers, we are conducting the first step stakeholder discussions in two parallel teams: (1) a team focusing on the determinants related to patient-PT interactions, the process of implementation, and the intervention itself; and (2) a team focusing on the determinants related to interactions between different health care providers, the referral patterns, and the structural aspects of healthcare. The first team consists of patients, psychologists, and physiotherapists. The second team involves various healthcare providers involved in the treatment of osteoarthritis, both first and second line. That is physiotherapists, GPs, orthopedic surgeons, and rheumatologists.
 The study is currently ongoing, and we will be discussing preliminary outcomes related to the methodology and design process, including evaluations at each stage of the project. The project can serve as a template for structured, multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement in the design of implementation actions. This work is integrated into a clinical trial that was funded by the Applied Biomedical Research Program, Research Foundation Flanders (Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen), Belgium (FWO-TBM project no. TBM2021 - T000521N - 54252, “Towards PREcision MEdicine for Osteoarthritis: Added value of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (the PREMEO trial).

A stakeholder-developed logic model to improve utilization of pharmacy-prescribed contraception in Utah

BackgroundCurrently, 20 states in the USA have passed policies allowing pharmacists to prescribe short-acting hormonal contraception, including pills, patches, and vaginal rings. Yet, utilization of these services remains limited. The purpose of this study was to (a) assess barriers and facilitators of pharmacy contraceptive dispensing among contraceptive users, pharmacists, and healthcare providers in Utah and (b) adapt and propose an evidence-based contraceptive intervention in the pharmacy environment.MethodsWe conducted 6 focus groups among contraceptive users, pharmacists, and healthcare providers assessing current barriers and facilitators to pharmacy prescribing. We coded transcripts of these focus groups to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Version 2.0 (CFIR) and characterized the findings based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Barrier-Busting tool. Based on the CFIR findings and ERIC strategies output, we adapted an existing evidence-based intervention (a contraceptive access initiative) to the Utah pharmacy environment. We then convened a pharmacy stakeholder meeting and presented elements of an Implementation Research Logic Model and obtained feedback. We coded this feedback to the CFIR framework to finalize an Implementation Research Logic Model for a proposed implementation approach to improving contraceptive prescribing.ResultsInitial focus group responses clustered around specific implementation barriers including financial barriers (cost for patients, as well as lack of reimbursement for pharmacist’s time); lack of awareness of the service (on the part of patients, pharmacists, and health care providers); need for updated tools for contraceptive counseling and scheduling; and need for increased pharmacists education to conduct contraceptive counseling. Proposed adaptations to the existing contraceptive access intervention included development of a technology-based patient/pharmacist screener tool and a healthcare provider/pharmacist contraceptive referral network. Stakeholders identified pharmacist reimbursement as the top priority for improving utilization.ConclusionsElements of contraceptive access initiatives mapped well as proposed implementation strategies to improving utilization of contraceptive prescribing in pharmacies.

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers

BackgroundAdoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems?MethodsDuring the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention’s core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts.ResultsExploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test.ConclusionsThis description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

S6-3 Barriers, facilitators and strategies to implement physical activity advice and referral to exercise therapy for people with hip and knee OA in primary care

Abstract Aim Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common diseases in the Netherlands. Most people with OA are seen in primary care. Core treatment for knee and hip OA in general practice is information and advice on physical activity and referral to exercise therapy. All Dutch guidelines on osteoarthritis recommend exercise therapy before a referral to secondary care. Despite the guidelines, only around 60% of the people on the waiting list for a replacement surgery have received exercise therapy. This study aims to provide insight in barriers and facilitators of General Practitioners (GPs) and possible strategies for advice on physical activity and referral to exercise therapy for people with knee and hip OA. Method A literature searched was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to give people with OA advice about being physically active and refer them to exercise therapy. In two focus groups with GPS the identified barriers and facilitators were discussed and prioritized. A third focus group was used to prioritize the barriers and facilitators. The prioritized barriers and facilitators were classified within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). In a third meeting the prioritizing was checked and the first ideas for strategies, based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool, were discussed. Results Barriers and facilitators out of seven papers were discussed. Most important barriers found in two focus groups (N = 12) were: time, lack of uniform information of HCPs, and cooperation between different HCPs. In the third meeting with other GPs (N = 32) different barriers in addition to the existing barriers, were mentioned: doubts about effectivity and patients’ expectations. Ideas about strategies based on the ERIC tool were education, involvement of patients, organizing regional meetings with different HCPs. Conclusion Different barriers were mentioned as most important in the focus groups, but all GPs agreed on the importance of the barrier of cooperation with different HCPs and uniform information to people with OA. Strategies that will be further developed, tested and evaluated are education for HCPs, organizations of interprofessional regional meetings and development of uniform information for people with OA.

Expanding the evidence for cross-sector collaboration in implementation science: creating a collaborative, cross-sector, interagency, multidisciplinary team to serve patients experiencing homelessness and medical complexity at hospital discharge.

Patients with medical and social complexity require care administered through cross-sector collaboration (CSC). Due to organizational complexity, biomedical emphasis, and exacerbated needs of patient populations, interventions requiring CSC prove challenging to implement and study. This report discusses challenges and provides strategies for implementation of CSC through a collaborative, cross-sector, interagency, multidisciplinary team model. A collaborative, cross-sector, interagency, multidisciplinary team was formed called the Buffalo City Mission Recuperative Care Collaborative (RCU Collaborative), in Buffalo, NY, to provide care transition support for people experiencing homelessness at acute care hospital discharge through a medical respite program. Utilizing the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework and feedback from cross-sector collaborative team, implementation strategies were drawn from three validated ERIC implementation strategy clusters: 1) Develop stakeholder relationships; 2) Use evaluative and iterative strategies; 3) Change infrastructure. Stakeholders identified the following factors as the main barriers: organizational culture clash, disparate visions, and workforce challenges related to COVID-19. Identified facilitators were clear group composition, clinical academic partnerships, and strategic linkages to acute care hospitals. A CSC interagency multidisciplinary team can facilitate complex care delivery for high-risk populations, such as medical respite care. Implementation planning is critically important when crossing agency boundaries for new multidisciplinary program development. Insights from this project can help to identify and minimize barriers and optimize utilization of facilitators, such as academic partners. Future research will address external organizational influences and emphasize CSC as central to interventions, not simply a domain to consider during implementation.

From research to daily clinical practice: implementation of orthogeriatric co-management in the trauma ward.

Evidence strongly suggests that orthogeriatric co-management improves patient outcomes in frail older patients with a fracture, but evidence regarding how to implement this model of care in daily clinical practice is scarce. In this paper, we first describe the implementation process and selection of implementation strategies for an orthogeriatric co-management program in the traumatology ward of the University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium. Second, we report the results of a multi-method feasibility study. This study (1) measures the fidelity towards the program's core components, (2) quantifies the perceived feasibility and acceptability by the healthcare professionals, and (3) defines implementation determinants. Implementation strategies were operationalized based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) guidelines. In the feasibility study, fidelity towards the core components of the program was measured in a group of 15 patients aged 75 years and over by using electronic health records. Feasibility and acceptability as perceived by the involved healthcare professionals was measured using a 15-question survey with a 5-point Likert scale. Implementation determinants were mapped thematically based on seven focus group discussions and two semi-structured interviews by focusing on the healthcare professionals' experiences. We observed low fidelity towards completion of a screening questionnaire to map the premorbid situation (13%), but high fidelity towards the other program core components: multidimensional evaluation (100%), development of an individual care plan (100%), and systematic follow-up (80%). Of the 50 survey respondents, 94% accepted the program and 62% perceived it as feasible. Important implementation determinants were feasibility, awareness and familiarity, and improved communication between healthcare professionals that positively influenced program adherence. Fidelity, acceptability, and feasibility of an orthogeriatric co-management program were high as a result of an iterative process of selecting implementation strategies with intensive stakeholder involvement from the beginning. [https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN20491828], International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry: [ISRCTN20491828]. Registered on October 11, 2021.

Implementation Facilitators and Barriers for Primary Care Providers Prescribing Daily Oral PrEP to Adolescents in the United States.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are critical in prescribing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to adolescents at risk of HIV. More research is needed to identify facilitators and barriers PCPs encounter in prescribing PrEP to eligible adolescents post-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. This online cross-sectional survey examined the PrEP implementation facilitators and barriers among a national sample of PCPs in the United States. PCPs (n = 502) specializing in family medicine or pediatrics were recruited from a Qualtrics panel from July 15 to August 9, 2022. We analyzed the collected data using content analysis and applied the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to codebook creation and data analysis. We conducted a Fisher's exact chi-square test of independence to compare facilitator and barrier prevalence differences between participants who had and had not prescribed PrEP to an adolescent patient. Results demonstrate that (1) distributing prescriber-focused educational materials, (2) involving parents, (3) changing liability laws, (4) enhancing adolescent PrEP uptake and adherence, (5) changing clinical resources, and (6) using mass/social media to change community norms might be strategies that influence PCPs prescribing PrEP to eligible adolescent patients. Results from this study could facilitate the planning of hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials designed to determine the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving the practices of PCPs prescribing PrEP to at-risk adolescents.

Clinicians’ perceptions on implementation strategies used to facilitate ABCDEF bundle adoption: A multicenter survey

BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) clinicians struggle to routinely implement the ICU Liberation bundle (ABCDEF bundle). As a result, critically ill patients experience increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Despite extensive research related to the barriers and facilitators of bundle use, little is known regarding which implementation strategies are used to facilitate its adoption and sustainability. ObjectivesTo identify implementation strategies used to increase adoption of the ABCDEF bundle and how those strategies are perceived by end-users (i.e., ICU clinicians) related to their helpfulness, acceptability, feasibility, and cost. MethodsWe conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of ICU clinicians from the 68 ICU sites that previously participated in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Collaborative. The survey was structured using the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies. Surveys were delivered electronically to site contacts. ResultsNineteen ICUs (28%) returned completed surveys. Sites used 63 of the 73 ERIC implementation strategies, with frequent use of strategies that may be readily available to clinicians (e.g., providing educational meetings or ongoing training), but less use of strategies that require changes to well-established organizational systems (e.g., alter incentive allowance structure). Overall, sites described the ERIC strategies used in their implementation process to be moderately helpful (mean score >3<4 on a 5-point Likert scale), somewhat acceptable and feasible (mean score >2<3), and either not-at-all or somewhat costly (mean scores >1<3). ConclusionsOur results show a potential over-reliance on accessible strategies and the possible benefit of unused ERIC strategies related to changing infrastructure and utilizing financial strategies.

Implementing lifestyle-related treatment modalities in osteoarthritis care: Identification of implementation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool.

Despite recommendations in international clinical guidelines, lifestyle-related treatment modalities (LRTMs) are currently underutilised in the conservative treatment of patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. This study aimed to identify implementation strategies in order to address barriers to implementing LRTMs from the perspective of healthcare professionals (HCPs). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Implementation Strategy Matching Tool was applied. First, previously identified influencing factors among primary and secondary HCPs were mapped onto the corresponding CFIR constructs/subconstructs by two researchers. Second, the CFIR-based barriers relevant for all HCPs were entered into the tool. Third, the CFIR-based barriers specific to one or more subgroups of HCPs served as additional input for the tool. Finally, a selection of ERIC implementation strategies was made based on the tool's output. Fourteen implementation strategies were selected. The strategy most endorsed by the tool was 'build a coalition'. Eight of the selected strategies belonged to the ERIC cluster 'develop stakeholder interrelationships'. Other strategies were part of the clusters 'use evaluative and iterative strategies' (n=3), 'utilise financial strategies' (n=2), and 'engage consumers' (n=1). The findings emphasise the importance of an interdisciplinary approach when addressing the implementation of LRTMs in osteoarthritis care. The final selection of implementation strategies forms the basis for a tailored implementation plan. Future work should focus on further operationalising the implementation strategies and evaluating the effectiveness of the resulting implementation plan.

Framework for Implementing Individualised Dosing of Anti-Cancer Drugs in Routine Care: Overcoming the Logistical Challenges

Precision medicine in oncology involves identifying the ‘right drug’, at the ‘right dose’, for the right person. Currently, many orally administered anti-cancer drugs, particularly kinase inhibitors (KIs), are prescribed at a standard fixed dose. Identifying the right dose remains one of the biggest challenges to optimal patient care. Recently the Precision Dosing Group established the Accurate Dosing of Anti-cancer Patient-centred Therapies (ADAPT) Program to address individualised dosing; thus, use existing anti-cancer drugs more safely and efficiently. In this paper, we outline our framework, based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework, with a simple 6-step process and strategies which have led to the successful implementation of the ADAPT program in South Australia. Implementation strategies in our 6-step process involve: (1) Evaluate the evidence and identify the cancer drugs: Literature review, shadowing other experts, establishing academic partnerships, adaptability/flexibility; (2) Establishment of analytical equipment for drug assays for clinical purposes: assessment for readiness, accreditation, feasibility, obtaining formal commitments, quality assurance to all stakeholders; (3) Clinical preparation and education: educational material, conducted educational meetings, involve opinion leaders, use of mass media, promote network weaving, conduct ongoing training; (4) Blood collection, sample preparation and analyses: goods received procedures, critical control points (transport time); (5) Interpret and release results with recommendations: facilitate the relay of clinical data to providers; (6) Clinical application: providing ongoing consultation, identify early adopters, identify, and prepare champions. These strategies were selected from the 73 implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The ADAPT program currently provides routine plasma concentrations for patients on several orally administered drugs in South Australia and is currently in its evaluation phase soon to be published. Our newly established framework could provide great potential and opportunities to advance individualised dosing of oral anti-cancer drugs in routine clinical care.

Retrospective analysis of factors influencing the implementation of a program to address unprofessional behaviour and improve culture in Australian hospitals

BackgroundUnprofessional behaviour among hospital staff is common. Such behaviour negatively impacts on staff wellbeing and patient outcomes. Professional accountability programs collect information about unprofessional staff behaviour from colleagues or patients, providing this as informal feedback to raise awareness, promote reflection, and change behaviour. Despite increased adoption, studies have not assessed the implementation of these programs utilising implementation theory. This study aims to (1) identify factors influencing the implementation of a whole-of-hospital professional accountability and culture change program, Ethos, implemented in eight hospitals within a large healthcare provider group, and (2) examine whether expert recommended implementation strategies were intuitively used during implementation, and the degree to which they were operationalised to address identified barriers.MethodData relating to implementation of Ethos from organisational documents, interviews with senior and middle management, and surveys of hospital staff and peer messengers were obtained and coded in NVivo using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implementation strategies to address identified barriers were generated using Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies and used in a second round of targeted coding, then assessed for degree of alignment to contextual barriers.ResultsFour enablers, seven barriers, and three mixed factors were found, including perceived limitations in the confidential nature of the online messaging tool (‘Design quality and packaging’), which had downstream challenges for the capacity to provide feedback about utilisation of Ethos (‘Goals and Feedback’, ‘Access to Knowledge and Information’). Fourteen recommended implementation strategies were used, however, only four of these were operationalised to completely address contextual barriers.ConclusionAspects of the inner setting (e.g., ‘Leadership Engagement’, ‘Tension for Change’) had the greatest influence on implementation and should be considered prior to the implementation of future professional accountability programs. Theory can improve understanding of factors affecting implementation, and support strategies to address them.