Facilitators Of Implementation Research Articles

Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation

BackgroundImplementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource.MethodsWe conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with “facilitation” and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection.FindingsThe literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software.ConclusionWe created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

A trial of implementation facilitation to increase timely admission to methadone treatment

BackgroundDuring the ongoing opioid epidemic, some Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) are unable to admit program applicants in a timely fashion. Interim methadone (IM) treatment (without routine counseling) is an effective approach to overcome this challenge when counseling capacity is inadequate to permit admissions within 14 days of request. It requires both federal and state approval and has been rarely utilized since its incorporation into the federal OTP regulations in 1993. MethodsWe evaluated the impact of Implementation Facilitation (IF) on OTPs providing timely admission to methadone treatment (i.e., within 14 days of request), adopting IM, and changing admissions procedures. IF included data collection on admission processes and an external facilitator who engaged OTP leadership, Local Champions through site visits, remote academic detailing, and feedback. Local Champions and State Opioid Treatment Authorities (SOTAs) participated in learning collaboratives. Using a modified stepped wedge design, six OTPs in four US states on the east and west coasts were randomly assigned to one of two clusters that staggered the timing of IF receipt. Study Phases included: Pre-Implementation, IF, and Sustainability. OTPs submitted data on treatment requests and admissions for 28 months (N = 3108 requests for treatment). ResultsAlthough none of the OTPs adopted IM, all six developed policies and procedures to enable its use. Some OTPs streamlined admissions processes prior to study launch and during the IF intervention. OTPs reduced admission delays over time, although there was substantial site heterogeneity. The IF Phase for the early cluster coincided with the onset of COVID-19, complicating the study. Rates of timely admission within 14 days of request were 56.2 % (Pre-Implementation), 55.8 % (IF), and 78.8 % (Sustainability). Compared to the Pre-Implementation Phase, the odds of timely admission were not significantly different during the IF Phase but significantly higher during the Sustainability Phase (OR = 2.35 [95 % CI = 1.34, 4.12]; p = 0.003). ConclusionsCommitting to study participation and IF activities may have prompted some OTPs to change practices that improved timely admission. Attributing changes to IF should be done with caution considering study limitations. Data collection for the study spanned the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicates interpretation. Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT04188977.

Getting to Fidelity: Consensus Development Process to Identify Core Activities of Implementation Facilitation.

Transferring successful implementation strategies from research to practice requires approaches for assessing fidelity to the strategy's core components. Implementation facilitation (IF) is a strategy involving an interactive process of problem-solving, enabling, and supporting individuals in efforts to implement clinical innovations that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and supportive interpersonal relationships. Because IF is a dynamic strategy involving numerous activities, our objective was to conduct a rigorous consensus development process to identify core activities for monitoring fidelity to IF when applied in clinical settings. We first conducted a scoping literature review to identify the range of activities used when IF has been applied in clinical settings, searching multiple citation databases for English-language articles including "facilitation" or other commonly-used terms for the strategy published from 1996-2015. Through multi-stage screening, 135 articles (from 94 studies) were identified for data extraction on IF activities, frequency with which IF activities were identified as 'core' by study authors, and study outcomes. From the literature review, we identified 32 distinct IF activities and developed definitions/examples for each. Next, we conducted a 3-stage, modified-Delphi expert panel consensus development process to identify core IF activities across three implementation phases (i.e., Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Sustainment). The expert panel identified 8 core activities for the Pre-Implementation Phase, 8 core activities for the Implementation Phase, and 4 core activities for the Sustainment Phase. This work provides an important foundation for developing measures/tools to assess use of core IF activities to ensure the strategy is delivered with fidelity.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department–Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder

Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of an Implementation Facilitation Training Program.

While implementation scientists are documenting an increasing number of implementation strategies that support the uptake of evidence-based practices and other clinical innovations, little is known about how to transfer this knowledge to those who conduct implementation efforts in the frontline clinical practice settings. We developed, implemented, and conducted a preliminary evaluation of a training program for one strategy, implementation facilitation (IF). The training program targets facilitation practitioners, clinical managers, and researchers. This paper describes the development of the training program, the program components, and the results from an evaluation of IF knowledge and skills reported by a subset of people who participated in the training. Findings from the evaluation indicate that this training program significantly increased trainees' perceived knowledge of and confidence in applying IF skills. Further research is needed to examine whether ongoing mentoring helps trainees retain confidence in applying some IF skills over the longer term.

Implementation facilitation to introduce and support emergency department-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in high need, low resource settings: protocol for multi-site implementation-feasibility study

BackgroundFor many reasons, the emergency department (ED) is a critical venue to initiate OUD interventions. The prevailing culture of the ED has been that substance use disorders are non-emergent conditions better addressed outside the ED where resources are less constrained. This study, its rapid funding mechanism, and accelerated timeline originated out of the urgent need to learn whether ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) with referral for treatment of OUD is generalizable, as well as to develop strategies to facilitate its adoption across a variety of ED settings and under real-world conditions. It both complements and uses methods adapted from Project ED Health (CTN-0069), a Hybrid Type 3 implementation-effectiveness study of using Implementation Facilitation (IF) to integrate ED-initiated BUP and referral programs.MethodsED-CONNECT (CTN 0079) was a three-site implementation study exploring the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of introducing ED-initiated BUP in rural and urban settings with high-need, limited resources, and different staffing structures. We used a multi-faceted approach to develop, introduce and iteratively refine site-specific ED clinical protocols and implementation plans for opioid use disorder (OUD) screening, ED-initiated BUP, and referral for treatment. We employed a participatory action research approach and use mixed methods incorporating data derived from abstraction of medical records and administrative data, assessments of recruited ED patient-participants, and both qualitative and quantitative inquiry involving staff from the ED and community, patients, and other stakeholders.DiscussionThis study was designed to provide the necessary, time-sensitive understanding of how to identify OUD and initiate treatment with BUP in the EDs previously not providing ED-initiated BUP, in communities in which this intervention is most needed: high need, low resource settings.Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03544112) on June 01, 2018: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03544112.

Working with HIV clinics to adopt addiction treatment using implementation facilitation (WHAT-IF?): Rationale and design for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study

BackgroundTobacco, alcohol and opioid misuse are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among people with HIV (PWH). Despite existence of evidence-based counseling and medications for addiction, these treatments are infrequently offered in HIV clinics. The Working with HIV clinics to adopt Addiction Treatment using Implementation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study was conducted to address this implementation challenge. The study's goals were to conduct a formative evaluation of barriers to and facilitators of implementing addiction treatment for PWH followed by an evaluation of the impact of Implementation Facilitation (IF) on promoting adoption of addiction treatments and clinical outcomes. MethodsThe study was conducted at four HIV clinics in the northeast United States, using a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation stepped wedge design and guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Research (PARiHS) framework. A mixed-methods approach was used to identify evidence, context, and facilitation-related barriers to and facilitators of integration of addiction treatments into HIV clinics and to help tailor IF for each clinic. An evaluation was then conducted of the impact of IF on implementation outcomes, including provision of addiction treatment (primary outcome), organizational and clinician and staff readiness to adopt addiction treatment, and changes in organizational models of care used to deliver addiction treatment. The evaluation also included IF's impact on effectiveness outcomes, specifically HIV-related outcomes among patients eligible for addiction treatment. ConclusionsResults will generate important information regarding the impact of IF as a reproducible strategy to promote addiction treatment in HIV clinics.

Implementation facilitation to promote emergency department-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study (Project ED HEALTH)

BackgroundPatients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present to the emergency department (ED) after overdose, or seeking treatment for general medical conditions, their addiction, withdrawal symptoms, or complications of injection drug use, such as soft tissue infections. ED-initiated buprenorphine has been shown to be effective in increasing patient engagement in treatment compared with brief intervention with a facilitated referral or referral alone. However, adoption into practice has lagged behind need. To address this implementation challenge, we are evaluating the impact of implementation facilitation (IF) on the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine for OUD into practice.MethodsThis protocol describes a study that is being conducted through the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Center for the Clinical Trials Network. A hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study design is used to evaluate the effectiveness of a standard educational dissemination strategy versus IF on implementation (primary) and effectiveness (secondary) outcomes in four urban, academic EDs. Sites start with a standard 60-min “Grand Rounds” educational intervention describing the prevalence of ED patients with OUD, the evidence for opioid agonist treatment and for innovative interventions with ED-initiated buprenorphine; followed by a 1-year baseline evaluation period. Using a modified stepped wedge design, sites are randomly assigned to the IF intervention which is guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework to assess evidence, context, and facilitation-related factors impacting the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine. During the 6 months of IF through the 1-year IF evaluation period, external facilitators work with local stakeholders to tailor and refine a bundle of activities to meet the site’s needs. The primary analyses compare the baseline evaluation period to the IF evaluation period (n = 120 patients with untreated OUD enrolled during each period) on (1) rates of provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine by ED providers with referral for ongoing medication (implementation outcome) and (2) rates of patient engagement in addiction treatment on the 30th day after the ED visit (effectiveness outcome). Finally, we will perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine if the effectiveness benefits are worth the additional costs.DiscussionResults will generate novel information regarding the impact of IF as a strategy to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03023930 first posted 1/10/2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03023930?term=0069&rank=1

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

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

The American Telemedicine Association ATA 2017 Telehealth 2.0 Conference Abstracts.

The American Telemedicine Association ATA 2017 Telehealth 2.0 Conference Abstracts.

Evaluation of an implementation facilitation strategy for settings that experience significant implementation barriers

Panel overview Though several implementation and quality improvement strategies have been shown to be effective in implementing programs and practices in routine clinical settings [1,2], little work has been done in developing and testing implementation strategies in settings that experience significant implementation barriers. This VA funded study evaluated a highly partnered implementation facilitation (IF) strategy [3] within the context of a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) mandate for implementation of Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) [4]. The IF strategy consisted of a national expert external facilitator (EF) and two internal regional facilitators (IRFs) who partnered with regional, medical center, and clinic leadership and staff in two VA regional networks to implement PC-MHI. Facilitators helped partners design/adapt their PC-MHI programs, develop site-specific implementation plans, and identify/address implementation barriers. They also identified and engaged key stakeholders at all organizational levels; conducted academic detailing, marketing, staff training, patient education, formative evaluation, and audit and feedback; assisted with technical issues; and established learning collaboratives. The EF had expertise in the evidence-base for PC-MHI and implementation activities. The IRF had protected time to support implementation activities, was embedded within the clinical organization at the regional level, and was familiar with local and regional organizational structures, procedures, culture, and clinical processes. We used a quasi-experimental, Hybrid Type III design [5] and mixed methods to test effectiveness of the IF strategy and document IF activities. National VA MH leadership has adopted this IF strategy for sites facing challenges to adopting evidencebased practices [4,6,7]. This panel presents findings from the project’s three components: A quantitative study of facilitation outcomes, a qualitative study of the facilitation process and its outcomes, and a qualitative study of facilitation skill transfer.

Outcomes of a partnered facilitation strategy to implement primary care-mental health.

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

Nursing in Australian general practice: directions and perspectives

Primary health care services, such as general practices, are the first point of contact for many Australian health care consumers. Until recently, the role of nursing in Australian primary care was poorly defined and described in the literature. Changes in policy and funding have given rise to an expansion of the nursing role in primary care. This paper provides a review of the literature and seeks to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementation of the practice nurse role in Australia and identifies strategic directions for future research and policy development.