Expert Recommendations For Implementing Change Research Articles

Implementation strategies and outcomes for occupational therapy in adult stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review

BackgroundStroke survivors often encounter occupational therapy practitioners in rehabilitation practice settings. Occupational therapy researchers have recently begun to examine the implementation strategies that promote the use of evidence-based occupational therapy practices in stroke rehabilitation; however, the heterogeneity in how occupational therapy research is reported has led to confusion about the types of implementation strategies used in occupational therapy and their association with implementation outcomes. This review presents these strategies and corresponding outcomes using uniform language and identifies the extent to which strategy selection has been guided by theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs).MethodsA scoping review protocol was developed to assess the breadth and depth of occupational therapy literature examining implementation strategies, outcomes, and TMFs in the stroke rehabilitation field. Five electronic databases and two peer-reviewed implementation science journals were searched to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers applied the inclusion parameters and consulted with a third reviewer to achieve consensus. The 73-item Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategy taxonomy guided the synthesis of implementation strategies. The Implementation Outcomes Framework guided the analysis of measured outcomes.ResultsThe initial search yielded 1219 studies, and 26 were included in the final review. A total of 48 out of 73 discrete implementation strategies were described in the included studies. The most used implementation strategies were “distribute educational materials” (n = 11), “assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators” (n = 11), and “conduct educational outreach visits” (n = 10). “Adoption” was the most frequently measured implementation outcome, while “cost” was not measured in any included studies. Eleven studies reported findings supporting the effectiveness of their implementation strategy or strategies; eleven reported inconclusive findings, and four found that their strategies did not lead to improved implementation outcomes. In twelve studies, at least partially beneficial outcomes were reported, corresponding with researchers using TMFs to guide implementation strategies.ConclusionsThis scoping review synthesized implementation strategies and outcomes that have been examined in occupational therapy and stroke rehabilitation. With the growth of the stroke survivor population, the occupational therapy profession must identify effective strategies that promote the use of evidence-based practices in routine stroke care and describe those strategies, as well as associated outcomes, using uniform nomenclature. Doing so could advance the occupational therapy field’s ability to draw conclusions about effective implementation strategies across diverse practice settings.

German translation and pre-testing of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)

BackgroundImplementation frameworks may support local implementation strategies with a sound theoretical foundation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) facilitates identification of contextual barriers and facilitators, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) allows identifying adequate implementation strategies. Both instruments are already used in German-speaking countries; however, no standardised and validated translation is available thus far. The aim of this study was to translate the CFIR and ERIC framework into German, in order to increase the use of these frameworks and the adherence to evidence-based implementation efforts in German-speaking countries.MethodsThe translation of the original versions of the CFIR and ERIC framework was guided by the World Health Organisation’s recommendations for the process of translating and adapting both conceptual frameworks. Accordingly, a four-step process was employed: first, forward translation from English into German was conducted by a research team of German native speakers with fluent knowledge of the English language. Second, a bilingual expert panel comprising one researcher with German as his mother tongue and expert command of the English language and one English language expert and university teacher reviewed the translation and discussed inconsistencies with the initial translators. Third, back-translation into English was conducted by an English native speaking researcher. The final version was pre-tested with 12 German researchers and clinicians who were involved in implementation projects using cognitive interviews.ResultsThe translation and review process revealed some inconsistencies between the original version and the German translations. All issues could be solved by discussion. Central aspects of the items were confirmed in 60 to 70% of the items, and modifications were proposed in 30% of the items. Finally, we revised one CFIR-item heading after pre-testing. The final version was given consent by all involved parties.ConclusionsNow, two validated and tested implementation frameworks to guide implementation efforts are available in the German language and can be used to increase the application of agreed-on implementation strategies into practice.

Recovery of a quality improvement project during the COVID pandemic.

246 Background: Prior to COVID we undertook a QI project with the aim improving the documentation of a best possible medication history (BPMH) or medication reconciliation (MedRec) for patients initiating systemic therapy (ST) in ambulatory oncology, where care spans multiple providers and patients may be at increased risk of adverse drug events. While initial improvements were realized (16.7% and 3.9% increases for BPMH and MedRec, respectively), completion rates returned to baseline following the start of the COVID pandemic. Methods: Guided by the four-phase Quality Implementation Framework we sought to recover implementation of MedRec. We initially undertook a purposeful re-examination of the MedRec process (Phase 1) to identify barriers to conducting MedRec during COVID. This guided the tailored selection of Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies utilized during the successive phase of the project. During each phase the proportion of patients with documented BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating ST out of those eligible was calculated. Results: Major barriers to conducting MedRec during COVID included reduced resources (time, human resources and physical resources), loss of dedicated staff, and change in workflow/ clinical models brought on by the introduction of virtual care. This informed our strategy to improve capacity to conduct MedRec (Phase 2) through the development and distribution of educational materials, revisions of professional roles, and creation of a new dedicated clinical team consisting of existing modified duty nurses to conduct MedRec. To support ongoing implementation (Phase 3), additional implementation strategies included the staged implementation scale-up, conduct of educational meetings/ outreach visits, facilitation, and provision of clinical supervision. The impact of each phase of implementation on BPMH and MedRec completion rates is summarized in Table. Conclusions: Recovery of a quality improvement intervention during COVID was realized through the utilization of a structured, implementation process model approach to identify and address barriers to implementation. Future work will focus on improvement of MedRec completion rates by clinicians, and on embedding processes into practice (Phase 4) to support sustainability of the intervention.[Table: see text]

Strategies to Integrate Genomic Medicine into Clinical Care: Evidence from the IGNITE Network.

The complexity of genomic medicine can be streamlined by implementing some form of clinical decision support (CDS) to guide clinicians in how to use and interpret personalized data; however, it is not yet clear which strategies are best suited for this purpose. In this study, we used implementation science to identify common strategies for applying provider-based CDS interventions across six genomic medicine clinical research projects funded by an NIH consortium. Each project’s strategies were elicited via a structured survey derived from a typology of implementation strategies, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), and follow-up interviews guided by both implementation strategy reporting criteria and a planning framework, RE-AIM, to obtain more detail about implementation strategies and desired outcomes. We found that, on average, the three pharmacogenomics implementation projects used more strategies than the disease-focused projects. Overall, projects had four implementation strategies in common; however, operationalization of each differed in accordance with each study’s implementation outcomes. These four common strategies may be important for precision medicine program implementation, and pharmacogenomics may require more integration into clinical care. Understanding how and why these strategies were successfully employed could be useful for others implementing genomic or precision medicine programs in different contexts.

Implementation for Sustained Impact in Teleophthalmology (I-SITE): applying the NIATx Model for tailored implementation of diabetic retinopathy screening in primary care

BackgroundTeleophthalmology provides evidence-based, telehealth diabetic retinopathy screening that is underused even when readily available in primary care clinics. There is an urgent need to increase teleophthalmology use in the US primary care clinics. In this study, we describe the development of a tailored teleophthalmology implementation program and report outcomes related to primary care provider (PCP) adoption.MethodsWe applied the 5 principles and 10 steps of the NIATx healthcare process improvement model to develop and test I-SITE (Implementation for Sustained Impact in Teleophthalmology) in a rural, the US multi-payer health system. This implementation program allows patients and clinical stakeholders to systematically tailor teleophthalmology implementation to their local context. We aligned I-SITE components and implementation strategies to an updated ERIC (Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change) framework. We compared teleophthalmology adoption between PCPs who did or did not participate in various components of I-SITE. We surveyed PCPs and clinical staff to identify the strategies they believed to have the highest impact on teleophthalmology use.ResultsTo test I-SITE, we initiated a year-long series of 14 meetings with clinical stakeholders (n=22) and met quarterly with patient stakeholders (n=9) in 2017. Clinical and patient stakeholder groups had 90.9% and 88.9% participant retention at 1 year, respectively. The increase in teleophthalmology use was greater among PCPs participating in the I-SITE implementation team than among other PCPs (p < 0.006). The proportion of all PCPs who used the implementation strategy of electing diabetic eye screening for their annual performance-based financial incentive increased from 0% (n=0) at baseline to 56% (n=14) following I-SITE implementation (p = 0.004). PCPs and clinical staff reported the following implementation strategies as having the highest impact on teleophthalmology use: reminders to ask patients about diabetic eye screening during clinic visits, improving electronic health record (EHR) documentation, and patient outreach.ConclusionsWe applied the NIATx Model to develop and test a teleophthalmology implementation program for tailored integration into primary care clinics. The NIATx Model provides a systematic approach to engaging key stakeholders for tailoring implementation of evidence-based telehealth interventions into their local context.

Implementation strategies in the context of medication reconciliation: a qualitative study

BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MedRec) is an important patient safety initiative that aims to prevent patient harm from medication errors. Yet, the implementation and sustainability of MedRec interventions have been challenging due to contextual barriers like the lack of interprofessional communication (among pharmacists, nurses, and providers) and limited organizational capacity. How to best implement MedRec interventions remains unclear. Guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, we report the differing strategies hospital implementation teams used to implement an evidence-based MedRec Toolkit (the MARQUIS Toolkit).MethodsA qualitative study was conducted with implementation teams and executive leaders of hospitals participating in the federally funded “Implementation of a Medication Reconciliation Toolkit to Improve Patient Safety” (known as MARQUIS2) research study. Data consisted of transcripts from web-based focus groups and individual interviews, as well as meeting minutes. Interview data were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison technique.ResultsData were collected from 16 hospitals using 2 focus groups, 3 group interviews, and 11 individual interviews, 10 sites’ meeting minutes, and an email interview of an executive. Major categories of implementation strategies predominantly mirrored the ERIC strategies of “Plan,” “Educate,” “Restructure,” and “Quality Management.” Participants rarely used the ERIC strategies of finance and attending to policy context. Two new non-ERIC categories of strategies emerged—“Integration” and “Professional roles and responsibilities.” Of the 73 specific strategies in the ERIC taxonomy, 32 were used to implement the MARQUIS Toolkit and 11 new, and non-ERIC strategies were identified (e.g., aligning with existing initiatives and professional roles and responsibilities).ConclusionsComplex interventions like the MARQUIS MedRec Toolkit can benefit from the ERIC taxonomy, but adaptations and new strategies (and even categories) are necessary to fully capture the range of approaches to implementation.

Healthcare provider characteristics that influence the implementation of individual-level patient-centered outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) data across practice settings: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review with a narrative synthesis

BackgroundSubstantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about how healthcare providers implement individual-level PROMs and PREMs data into daily practice.MethodsThis mixed methods systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and ProQuest (Dissertation and Theses)) with limiters of English from 2009 onwards. Study selection criteria include implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM.DiscussionData from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centered approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182904.

Perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, outcomes, and helpfulness of strategies to implement screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in acute care

BackgroundScreening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a clinical intervention used to address alcohol and illicit drug use. SBIRT use has resulted in positive health and social outcomes; however, SBIRT implementation remains low. Research on implementing interventions, such as SBIRT, lacks information about challenges and successes related to implementation. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) provides a framework to guide comprehension, clarity, and relevance of strategies available for implementation research. This framework was applied to qualitative feedback gathered from site coordinators (SCs) leading SBIRT implementation. The purpose of this study was to describe the SCs’ experiences pertaining to SBIRT implementation across a health system.MethodsWithin the context of a larger parent study, a semi-structured interview guide was used to capture 14 SCs’ perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes pertaining to SBIRT implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed using standard content analytic procedures. A follow-up survey was developed based on 14 strategies identified from qualitative data and was administered electronically to determine the SC’s perceptions of the most helpful implementation strategies on a scale of 1 (least helpful) to 5 (most helpful).ResultsAll 14 invited SCs participated in the SBIRT implementation interview, and 11 of 14 (79%) responded to the follow-up survey. Within the categories of barriers, facilitators, and outcomes, 25 subthemes emerged. The most helpful implementation strategies were reexamining the implementation (M = 4.38; n = 8), providing ongoing consultation (M = 4.13; n = 8), auditing and providing feedback (M = 4.1; n = 10), developing education materials (M = 4.1; n = 10), identifying and preparing champions (M = 4; n = 7), and tailoring strategies (M = 4; n = 7).ConclusionSCs who led implementation efforts within a large healthcare system identified several barriers and facilitators to the implementation of SBIRT. Additionally, they identified clinician-related outcomes associated with SBIRT implementation into practice as well as strategies that were helpful in the implementation process. This information can inform the implementation of SBIRT and other interventions in acute care settings.

The art and science of achieving zero COVID-19 transmissions in staff at a large community care facility in Singapore using implementation science: a retrospective analysis

Background:The Singapore COVID-19 multi-ministry taskforce commissioned community care facilities (CCFs) as a hospital-sparing strategy amidst rising coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. An exhibition centre was repurposed within ten days as an ad-hoc 3200-bed medical facility (CCF@EXPO) to isolate and treat infected patients amidst concerns of potential COVID-19 transmissions to healthcare staff. This paper deconstructs the implementation of the CCF@EXPO infection prevention and control (IPC) innovation and elicits critical factors which enabled zero transmission of COVID-19 to staff during 100 days of operation using an implementation science framework.Methods:This study employed retrospective analysis using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. The CCF@EXPO IPC innovation comprised five key elements: (a) physical environment, (b) work practices, (c) tools and technology, (d) staff training, and (e) audits. Contextual assessment was conducted for baseline and 100thday of CCF@EXPO operations. Actions taken to improve scores between these timepoints were mapped against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool to surface key implementation strategies.Results:Positive shifts were observed in all constructs of the i-PARIHS framework, between baseline and 100thday. The largest shifts were in work practices, tools and technology, and staff training. Key implementation strategies used included: rapid Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, identifying champions, team building, creating a culture of collaborative learning, multi-disciplinary teamwork, transparency in communications and decision-making, and skillful facilitation.Conclusions:Rapid PDSA cycles anchored by principles to ensure staff safety, was the key approach used in implementation of the CCF@EXPO IPC innovation. Retrospective analysis using the i-PARIHS framework is useful to elicit success factors and to inform preparedness planning of future pandemics.

Development and rapid evaluation of services to support the physical health of people using psychiatric inpatient units during the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol

BackgroundPeople diagnosed with a serious mental illness have worse physical health and lower life expectancy than the general population. Integration of mental and physical health services is seen as one service development that could better support this. This protocol describes the evaluation of the provision of a Virtual Physical Health Clinic (VPHC) and Consultant Connect (CC) services to one UK-based mental health Trust.MethodsProspective, formative, pragmatic evaluation using both quantitative and qualitative techniques and driven by implementation science theoretical frameworks. The VPHC and CC are described along with the methodology being used to rapidly evaluate their implementation, effectiveness and potential economic impact in order to inform future roll out. We will assess the implementation process through quantitative data on uptake and reach and through self-reported data to be collected from interviews and the use of validated implementation outcome assessment measures. We will assess implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies as a framework. We will assess the health economic impact of both services using established health economic methods including cost comparison scenarios and health service utilisation analyses.DiscussionSupporting the physical health management of people in psychiatric inpatient units is important in improving the physical health of this population. Integration of mental and physical health can help this to happen effectively. This initiative provides one of the first service evaluation protocols of its kind to be reported in the UK at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rapid Cycle Evaluation and Adaptation of an Inpatient Tobacco Treatment Service at a U.S. Safety-Net Hospital.

To address disparities in smoking rates, our safety-net hospital implemented an inpatient tobacco treatment intervention: an "opt-out" electronic health record (EHR)-based Best Practice Alert + order-set, which triggers consultation to a Tobacco Treatment Consult (TTC) service for all hospitalized patients who smoke cigarettes. We report on development, implementation, and adaptation of the intervention, informed by a pre-implementation needs assessment and two rapid-cycle evaluations guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation. We identified stakeholders affected by implementation and conducted a local needs assessment starting 6 months-pre-launch. We then conducted two rapid-cycle evaluations during the first 6 months post-implementation. The CFIR informed survey and interview guide development, data collection, assessment of barriers and facilitators, and selection of ERIC strategies to implement and adapt the intervention. Key themes were: (1) Understanding the hospital's priority to improving tobacco performance metrics was critical in gaining leadership buy-in (CFIR Domain: Outer setting; Construct: External Policy and Incentives). (2) CFIR-based rapid-cycle evaluations allowed us to recognize implementation challenges early and select ERIC strategies clustering into 3 broad categories (conducting needs assessment; developing stakeholder relationships; training and educating stakeholders) to make real-time adaptations, creating an acceptable clinical workflow. (3) Minimizing clinician burden allowed the successful implementation of the TTC service. (4) Demonstrating improved 6-month quit rates and tobacco performance metrics were key to sustaining the program. Rapid-cycle evaluations to gather pre-implementation and early-implementation data, focusing on modifiable barriers and facilitators, allowed us to develop and refine the intervention to improve acceptability, adoption, and sustainability, enabling us to improve tobacco performance metrics in a short timeline. Future directions include spreading rapid-cycle evaluations to promote implementation of inpatient tobacco treatment programs to other settings and assessing long-term sustainability and return on investment of these programs.

Consensus on strategies for implementing high priority mental health care practices within the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies remains a significant challenge. At present, there is a gap between the number of strategies prospectively included in implementation trials, typically four or fewer, and the number of strategies utilized retrospectively, often 20 or more. This gap points to the need for developing a better understanding of the range of implementation strategies that should be considered in implementation science and practice. This study elicited expert recommendations to identify which of 73 discrete implementation strategies were considered essential for implementing three mental health care high priority practices (HPPs) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs: depression outcome monitoring in primary care mental health (n = 20), prolonged exposure therapy for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 22), and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications (n = 20). Participants had expertise in implementation science, the specific HPP, or both. A highly structured recommendation process was used to obtain recommendations for each HPP. Majority consensus was identified for 26 or more strategies as absolutely essential; 53 or more strategies were identified as either likely essential or absolutely essential across the three HPPs. The large number of strategies identified as essential starkly contrasts with existing research that largely focuses on application of single strategies to support implementation. Systematic investigation and documentation of multi-strategy implementation initiatives is needed. Most implementation studies focus on the impact of a relatively small number of discrete implementation strategies on the uptake of a practice. However, studies that systematically survey providers find that dozens or more discrete implementation strategies can be identified in the context of the implementation initiative. This study engaged experts in implementation science and clinical practice in a structured recommendation process to identify which of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies were considered absolutely essential, likely essential, likely inessential, and absolutely inessential for each of the three distinct mental health care practices: depression outcome monitoring in primary care, prolonged exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder, and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications. The results highlight that experts consider a large number of strategies as absolutely or likely essential for supporting the implementation of mental health care practices. For example, 26 strategies were identified as absolutely essential for all three mental health care practices. Another 27 strategies were identified as either absolutely or likely essential across all three practices. This study points to the need for future studies to document the decision-making process an initiative undergoes to identify which strategies to include and exclude in an implementation effort. In particular, a structured approach to this documentation may be necessary to identify strategies that may be endogenous to a care setting and that may not be otherwise be identified as being "deliberately" used to support a practice or intervention.

Amplification of school-based strategies resulting from the application of the dynamic adaptation process to reduce sexual and gender minority youth suicide.

Evidence-informed practices (EIPs) are imperative to increase school safety for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) students and their peers. Recently, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), a taxonomy of discrete implementation strategies used in health care settings, was adapted for schools. The School Implementation Strategies, Translating the ERIC Resources (SISTER) resulted in 75 discrete implementation strategies. In this article, we examine which SISTER strategies were used to implement six EIPs to reduce suicidality among LGBTQ high school students. We applied the dynamic adaptation process (DAP), a phased, data-driven implementation planning process, that accounts for adaptation while encouraging fidelity to the core elements of EIPs. Qualitative data derived from 36 semi-structured interviews and 16 focus groups conducted with school professionals during the first of a 3-year effort to implement EIPs in 19 high schools. We undertook iterative comparative analysis of these data, mapping codes to the relevant domains in the SISTER. We then synthesized the findings by creating a descriptive matrix of the SISTER implementation strategies employed by schools. We found that 20 SISTER strategies were encouraged under the DAP, nine of which were amplified by school personnel. Nine additional SISTER strategies not specifically built into the DAP were implemented independently by school personnel, given the freedom the DAP provided, resulting in a total of 29 SISTER strategies. This study offers insight into how schools select and elaborate implementation strategies. The DAP fosters freedom to expand beyond study-supported strategies. Qualitative data illuminate motives for strategy diversification, such as improving EIP fit. Qualitative methods allow for an in-depth illustration of the strategies that school personnel enacted in their efforts to implement the EIPs. We discuss the utility of the DAP in supporting EIP implementation to reduce disparities for LGBTQ students. Implementation science is, in part, concerned with implementation strategies, which are actions made to bridge implementation gaps between evidence-informed practices and the contexts in which practices are to be used. Implementation experts compiled a list of strategies for promoting the use of new practices in school settings. The authors of this article examine which implementation strategies in this list were promoted by the research team and which were employed independently by school personnel. Our results illustrate how school personnel applied strategies based on the conditions and needs of their individual schools. These results will contribute to knowledge about implementation strategies and improve readiness by building in strategies implementation teams will use. The authors conducted interviews and focus groups with school personnel involved in implementing six evidence-informed practices for reducing suicidality and other negative outcomes for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) high school students. Findings are from the end of the first year of implementation and provide a glimpse into how and why certain implementation strategies were employed by school personnel to facilitate adoption of the practices. Findings describe how they applied these strategies in communities where LGBTQ people were marginalized and where anti-LGBTQ stigma influenced policies and resulted in barriers to implementation. This article contributes to efforts to identify and tailor implementation strategies that can encourage the use of evidence-informed practices to improve the well-being of LGBTQ youth and other health disparity populations.

Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management: Barrier Identification and Implementation Strategy Mapping.

Introduction and aimsPatients undergoing major surgery risk significant blood loss and transfusion, which increases substantially if they have pre-existing anemia. Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management Pathways (PAIDSEM-P) outline recommended blood tests and treatment to optimize patients before surgery. Documented success using PAIDSEM-P to reduce transfusions and improve patient outcomes exists, but the reporting quality of such studies is suboptimal. It remains unclear what implementation strategies best support the implementation of PAIDSEM-P.MethodMaximum variation, purposive sampling was used to recruit a total of 15 participants, including a range of health professionals and patients for semi-structured interviews. Data analysis utilized a deductive approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for barrier identification and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) for reporting recommended implementation strategies. A modified version of the Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time (AACTT) framework assisted with conceptualisation and targeted strategy selection.ResultsThe analysis revealed five barriers: access to knowledge and information, patient needs and resources, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, available resources, and networks and communications, which had strong ERIC recommendations, including conduct educational meetings, develop educational materials, distribute educational materials, obtain and use patients/consumers family feedback, involve patients/consumers/family members, conduct a local needs assessment, access new funding, promote network weaving, and organize clinician implementation team meetings.ConclusionsMapping the barriers and strategies using the ERIC framework on the basis of individual actor categories proved to be useful in identifying a pragmatic number of implementation strategies that may help in supporting the utilisation of the PAIDSEM-P and other evidence-based healthcare implementation problems more broadly.

A multi-pronged scoping review approach to understanding the evolving implementation of the Smallpox and Polio eradication programs: what can other Global Health initiatives learn?

BackgroundPrevious initiatives have aimed to document the history and legacy of the Smallpox Eradication Program (SEP) and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). In this multi-pronged scoping review, we explored the evolution and learning from SEP and GPEI implementation over time at global and country levels to inform other global health programs.MethodsThree related reviews of literature were conducted; we searched for documents on 1) the SEP and 2) GPEI via online database searches and also conducted global and national-level grey literature searches for documents related to the GPEI in seven purposively selected countries under the Synthesis and Translation of Research and Innovations from Polio Eradication (STRIPE) project. We included documents relevant to GPEI implementation. We conducted full text data analysis and captured data on Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies and principles, tools, outcomes, target audiences, and relevance to global health knowledge areas.Results200 articles were included in the SEP scoping review, 1885 articles in the GPEI scoping review, and 963 documents in the grey literature review. M&E and engagement strategies were consistently translated from the SEP to GPEI; these evolved into newer approaches under the GPEI. Management strategies including setting up robust record systems also carried forward from SEP to GPEI; however, lessons around the need for operational flexibility in applying these strategies at national and sub-national levels did not. Similarly, strategies and lessons around conducting health systems readiness assessments prior to implementation were not carried forward from SEP to GPEI. Differences in the planning and communication strategies between the two programs included fidelity to implementation blueprints appeared to be higher under SEP, and independent monitoring boards and communication and media strategies were more prominent under GPEI.ConclusionsLinear learning did not always occur between SEP and GPEI; several lessons were lost and had to be re-learned. Implementation and adaptation of strategies in global health programs should be well codified, including information on the contextual, time and stakeholders’ issues that elicit adaptations. Such description can improve the systematic translation of knowledge, and gains in efficiency and effectiveness of future global health programs.

Teach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts.

Patients often have difficulty comprehending or recalling information given to them by their healthcare providers. Use of ‘teach-back’ has been shown to improve patients’ knowledge and self-care abilities, however there is little guidance for healthcare services seeking to embed teach-back in their setting. This review aims to synthesize evidence about the translation of teach-back into practice including mode of delivery, use of implementation strategies and effectiveness. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting the use of teach-back as an educational intervention, published up to July 2019. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed methodologic quality. Implementation strategies were extracted into distinct categories established in the Implementation Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Overall, 20 studies of moderate quality were included in this review (four rated high, nine rated moderate, seven rated weak). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of setting, population and outcomes. In most studies (n = 15), teach-back was delivered as part of a simple and structured educational approach. Implementation strategies were infrequently reported (n = 10 studies). The most used implementation strategies were training and education of stakeholders (n = 8), support for clinicians (n = 6) and use of audits and provider feedback (n = 4). Use of teach-back proved effective in 19 of the 20 studies, ranging from learning-related outcomes (e.g. knowledge recall and retention) to objective health-related outcomes (e.g. hospital re-admissions, quality of life). Teach-back was found to be effective across a wide range of settings, populations and outcome measures. While its mode of delivery is well-defined, strategies to support its translation into practice are not often described. Use of implementation strategies such as training and education of stakeholders and supporting clinicians during implementation may improve the uptake and sustainability of teach-back and achieve positive outcomes.

Refined conceptual model for implementing dementia risk reduction: incorporating perspectives from Australian general practice.

Dementia is now a global health priority. With no known cure, the best way to reduce the number of people who will be living with dementia is by promoting dementia risk reduction (DRR). However, despite evidence-based guidelines, DRR is not yet routinely promoted in Australian general practice. Previously, we proposed a preliminary conceptual model for implementing DRR in primary care based on our scoping review of practitioners' views. The present study aimed to refine this model for the Australian context by incorporating the current perspectives of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) about DRR. Interviews with 17 GPs and GPNs were analysed using the framework method, underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We identified 12 barriers to promoting DRR in Australian general practice, along with five facilitators. Using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Matching Tool to select prioritised implementation strategies from the ERIC project, the findings were incorporated into a refined conceptual model. The refined model points to an implementation intervention that uses educational materials and meetings to reach consensus with GPs and GPNs on the importance of promoting DRR and an appropriate approach. Champion GPs and GPNs should be prepared to drive the agreed implementation forward, and general practices should share successes and lessons learned. This model is a crucial step in bridging the gap between DRR guidelines and routine practice.

Importance and feasibility of an adapted set of implementation strategies in schools

Implementation strategies are methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a new program or practice. Recent studies have facilitated implementation strategy prioritization by mapping strategies based on their feasibility and importance, but these efforts have not been replicated across distinct service delivery contexts. The aim of the current project was to evaluate the feasibility and importance of an education-adapted taxonomy of implementation strategies and to directly compare feasibility and importance ratings to the original Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, the leading compilation of implementation strategies in healthcare. A sample of 200 school-based consultants who support social, emotional, and mental health services provided ratings of feasibility and importance for each of the 75 strategies included in the adapted School Implementation Strategies, Translating ERIC Resources (SISTER) compilation. Results identified strategies rated as: (a) both feasible and important, (b) important but not feasible, (c) feasible but not important, and (d) neither feasible nor important. When mapped onto scatterplots using feasibility and importance ratings, comparison of ERIC and SISTER ratings indicated that approximately one third of the strategies shifted from one quadrant of the feasibility and importance axis to another. Findings demonstrate the value of efforts to adapt and generalize existing implementation products to novel service settings, such as schools. Additionally, findings assist implementation researchers and practitioners in prioritizing the selection of actionable and practically relevant implementation strategies to advance the quality of school mental health services.

Implementing a Mandated Program Across a Regional Health Care System: A Rapid Qualitative Assessment to Evaluate Early Implementation Strategies.

Rapid qualitative assessment was used to describe early strategies to implement an evidence-based walking program for hospitalized older adults, assiSTed eaRly mobIlity for hospitalizeD older vEterans (STRIDE), mandated by a regional Department of Veterans Affairs health care system office (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN]). Data were collected from 6 hospital sites via semistructured interviews with key informants, observations of telephone-based technical assistance, and review of VISN-requested program documents (eg, initial implementation plans). An overarching framework of actionable feedback for VISN leadership and specification of locally initiated implementation strategies, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation, was used. Actionable feedback was shared with VISN leadership 1 month after the initiative. ERIC implementation strategies identified were as follows: (1) promoting adaptability-4 sites had physical therapists/kinesiotherapists instead of assistants walk patients; (2) promoting network weaving-strengthening nursing and PT/KT partnership with regular communication opportunities or a point person was important for implementation; (3) distributing educational materials-2 sites distributed information about STRIDE via e-mail and in person; and (4) organizing clinician implementation team meetings-3 sites used interdisciplinary team meetings to communicate with the clinical staff about STRIDE. This qualitative study sheds light on early experiences with implementing STRIDE; the results have been instructive for ongoing implementation and future dissemination of STRIDE, and the approach can be applied across contexts to inform implementation of other programs.

Adapting a Compilation of Implementation Strategies to Advance School-Based Implementation Research and Practice.

Schools, like other service sectors, are confronted with an implementation gap, with the slow adoption and uneven implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP) as part of routine service delivery, undermining efforts to promote better youth behavioral health outcomes. Implementation researchers have undertaken systematic efforts to publish taxonomies of implementation strategies (i.e., methods or techniques that are used to facilitate the uptake, use, and sustainment of EBP), such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Project. The 73-strategy ERIC compilation was developed in the context of healthcare and largely informed by research and practice experts who operate in that service sector. Thus, the comprehensibility, contextual appropriateness, and utility of the existing compilation to other service sectors, such as the educational setting, remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to initiate the School Implementation Strategies, Translating ERIC Resources (SISTER) Project to iteratively adapt the ERIC compilation to the educational sector. The results of a seven-step adaptation process resulted in 75 school-adapted strategies. Surface-level changes were made to the majority of the original ERIC strategies (52 out of 73), while five of the strategies required deeper modifications for adaptation to the school context. Six strategies were deleted and seven new strategies were added based on existing school-based research. The implications of this study's findings for prevention scientists engaged in implementation research (e.g., creating a common nomenclature for implementation strategies) and limitations are discussed.