Uncertainty as a Key Influence in the Decision To Admit Patients with Transient Ischemic Attack

Background Patients with transient ischemic attacks (TIA) are at high risk of subsequent vascular events. Hospitalization improves quality of care, yet admission rates for TIA patients vary considerably. Objectives We sought to identify factors associated with the decision to admit patents with TIA. Design We conducted a secondary analysis of a prior study’s data including semi-structured interviews, administrative data, and chart review. Participants We interviewed multidisciplinary clinical staff involved with TIA care. Administrative data included information for TIA patients in emergency departments or inpatient settings at VA medical centers (VAMCs) for fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2014. Chart reviews were conducted on a subset of patients from 12 VAMCs in FY 2011. Approach For the qualitative data, we focused on interviewees’ responses to the prompt: “Tell me what influences you in the decision to or not to admit TIA patients.” We used administrative data to identify admission rates and chart review data to identify ABCD2 scores (a tool to classify stroke risk after TIA). Key Results Providers’ decisions to admit TIA patients were related to uncertainty in several domains: lack of a facility TIA-specific policy, inconsistent use of ABCD2 score, and concerns about facilities’ ability to complete a timely workup. There was a disconnect between staff perceptions about TIA admission and facility admission rates. According to chart review data, staff at facilities with higher admission rates in FY 2011 reported consistent reliance on ABCD2 scores and related guidelines in admission decision-making. Conclusions Many factors contributed to decisions regarding admitting a patient with TIA; however, clinicians’ uncertainty appeared to be a key driver. Further quality improvement interventions for TIA care should focus on facility adoption of TIA protocols to address uncertainty in TIA admission decision-making and to standardize timely evaluation of TIA patients and delivery of secondary prevention strategies

Prime movers: Advanced practice professionals in the role of stroke coordinator

Background and purpose Following a stroke quality improvement clustered randomized trial and a national acute ischemic stroke (AIS) directive in the Veterans Health Administration in 2011, this comparative case study examined the role of advanced practice professionals (APPs) in quality improvement activities among stroke teams. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted at 11 Veterans Affairs medical centers annually over a 3-year period. A multidisciplinary team analyzed interviews from clinical providers through a mixed-methods, data matrix approach linking APPs (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) with Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs and a group organization measure. Conclusion Five of 11 facilities independently chose to staff stroke coordinator positions with APPs. Analysis indicated that APPs emerged as boundary spanners across services and disciplines who played an important role in coordinating evidence-based, facility-level approaches to AIS care. The presence of APPs was related to engaging in group-based evaluation of performance data, implementing stroke protocols, monitoring care through data audit, convening interprofessional meetings involving planning activities, and providing direct care. Implications for practice The presence of APPs appears to be an influential feature of local context crucial in developing an advanced, facility-wide approach to stroke care because of their boundary spanning capabilities

The prospectively-reported implementation update and score (PRIUS): a new method for capturing implementation-related developments over time

BACKGROUND: Implementation of new programs within healthcare systems can be extraordinarily complex. Individuals within the same healthcare organization often have different perspectives on how implementation of a new program unfolds over time, and it is not always clear in the midst of implementation what issues are most important or how to address them. An implementation support team within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sought to develop an efficient method for eliciting an ongoing, detailed and nuanced account of implementation progress from multiple viewpoints that could support and inform active implementation of two new VHA programs. METHODS: The new Prospectively-Reported Implementation Update and Score ("PRIUS") provided a quick, structured, prospective and open-ended method for individuals to report on implementation progress. PRIUS updates were submitted approximately twice a month. Responding to the prompt "What are some things that happened over the past two weeks that seem relevant from your perspective to the implementation of this project?", individuals scored each update with a number ranging from + 3 to - 3. RESULTS: In 2016-17, individuals submitted over 600 PRIUS updates across the two QI projects. PRIUS-based findings included that staff from different services reported fundamentally different perspectives on program implementation. Rapid analysis and reporting of the PRIUS data led directly to changes in implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The PRIUS provided an efficient, structured method for developing a granular and context-sensitive account of implementation progress. The approach appears to be highly adaptable to a wide range of settings and interventions

Evaluating the feasibility of implementing a Telesleep pilot program using two-tiered external facilitation

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can negatively impact patients' health status and outcomes. Positive airway pressure (PAP) reverses airway obstruction and may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes. Remote monitoring of PAP (as opposed to in-person visits) may improve access to sleep medicine services. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a clinical program that delivers treatment for OSA through PAP remote monitoring using external facilitation as an implementation strategy. Methods: Participants included patients with OSA at a Veteran Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). PAP adherence and clinical disease severity on treatment (measured by the apnea hypopnea index [AHI]) were the preliminary effectiveness outcomes across two delivery models: usual care (in-person) and Telehealth nurse-delivered remote monitoring. We also assessed visit duration and travel distance. A prospective, mixed-methods evaluation examined the two-tiered external facilitation implementation strategy. Results: The pilot project included N = 52 usual care patients and N = 38 Telehealth nurse-delivered remote monitoring patients. PAP adherence and disease severity were similar across the delivery modalities. However, remote monitoring visits were 50% shorter than in-person visits and saved a mean of 72 miles of travel (median = 45.6, SD = 59.0, mode = 17.8, range 5.4-220). A total of 62 interviews were conducted during implementation with a purposive sample of 12 clinical staff involved in program implementation. Weekly external facilitation delivered to both front-line staff and supervisory physicians was necessary to ensure patient enrollment and treatment. Synchronized, "two-tiered" facilitation at the executive and coordinator levels proved crucial to developing the clinical and administrative infrastructure to support a PAP remote monitoring program and to overcome implementation barriers. Conclusions: Remote PAP monitoring had similar efficacy to in-person PAP services in this Veteran population. Although external facilitation is a widely-recognized implementation strategy in quality improvement projects, less is known about how multiple facilitators work together to help implement complex programs. Two-tiered facilitation offers a model well-suited to programs where innovations span disciplines, disrupt professional hierarchies (such as those between service chiefs, clinicians, and technicians) and bring together providers who do not know each other, yet must collaborate to improve access to care

Multi-tiered external facilitation: the role of feedback loops and tailored interventions in supporting change in a stepped-wedge implementation trial

Background: Facilitation is a complex, relational implementation strategy that guides change processes. Facilitators engage in multiple activities and tailor efforts to local contexts. How this work is coordinated and shared among multiple, external actors and the contextual factors that prompt and moderate facilitators to tailor activities have not been well-described. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to improve the quality of transient ischemic attack care. Six sites in the Veterans Health Administration received external facilitation (EF) before and during a 1-year active implementation period. We examined how EF was employed and activated. Data analysis included prospective logs of facilitator correspondence with sites (160 site-directed episodes), stakeholder interviews (a total of 78 interviews, involving 42 unique individuals), and collaborative call debriefs (n=22) spanning implementation stages. Logs were descriptively analyzed across facilitators, sites, time periods, and activity types. Interview transcripts were coded for content related to EF and themes were identified. Debriefs were reviewed to identify instances of and utilization of EF during site critical junctures. Results: Multi-tiered EF was supported by two groups (site-facing quality improvement [QI] facilitators and the implementation support team) that were connected by feedback loops. Each site received an average of 24 episodes of site-directed EF; most of the EF was delivered by the QI nurse. For each site, site-directed EF frequently involved networking (45%), preparation and planning (44%), process monitoring (44%), and/or education (36%). EF less commonly involved audit and feedback (20%), brainstorming solutions (16%), and/or stakeholder engagement (5%). However, site-directed EF varied widely across sites and time periods in terms of these facilitation types. Site participants recognized the responsiveness of the QI nurse and valued her problem-solving, feedback, and accountability support. External facilitators used monitoring and dialogue to intervene by facilitating redirection during challenging periods of uncertainty about project direction and feasibility for sites. External facilitators, in collaboration with the implementation support team, successfully used strategies tailored to diverse local contexts, including networking, providing data, and brainstorming solutions. Conclusions: Multi-tiered facilitation capitalizing on emergent feedback loops allowed for tailored, site-directed facilitation. Critical juncture cases illustrate the complexity of EF and the need to often try multiple strategies in combination to facilitate implementation progress

Seeding Structures for a Community of Practice Focused on Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA): Implementing Across Disciplines and Waves

Background: The Community of Practice (CoP) model represents one approach to address knowledge management to support effective implementation of best practices. Objective: We sought to identify CoP developmental strategies within the context of a national quality improvement project focused on improving the quality for patients receiving acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) care. Design: Stepped wedge trial. Participants: Multidisciplinary staff at six Veterans Affairs medical facilities. Interventions: To encourage site implementation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention, the trial included strategies to improve the development of a CoP: site kickoff meetings, CoP conference calls, and an interactive website (the "Hub"). Approach: Mixed-methods evaluation included data collected through a CoP attendance log; semi-structured interviews with site participants at 6 months (n = 32) and 12 months (n = 30), and CoP call facilitators (n = 2); and 22 CoP call debriefings. Key results: The critical seeding structures that supported the cultivation of the CoP were the kickoffs which fostered relationships (key to the community element of CoPs) and provided the evidence base relevant to TIA care (key to the domain element of CoPs). The Hub provided the forum for sharing quality improvement plans and other tools which were further highlighted during the CoP calls (key to the practice element of CoPs). CoP calls were curated to create a positive context around participants' work by recognizing team successes. In addition to improving care at their local facilities, the community created a shared set of tools which built on their collective knowledge and could be shared within and outside the group. Conclusions: The PREVENT CoP advanced the mission of the learning healthcare system by successfully providing a forum for shared learning. The CoP was grown through seeding structures that included kickoffs, CoP calls, and the Hub. A CoP expands upon the learning collaborative implementation strategy as an effective implementation practice

Implementation Evaluation of a Complex Intervention to Improve Timeliness of Care for Veterans with Transient Ischemic Attack

Background: The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurologic Symptoms (PREVENT) program was designed to address systemic barriers to providing timely guideline-concordant care for patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Objective: We evaluated an implementation bundle used to promote local adaptation and adoption of a multi-component, complex quality improvement (QI) intervention to improve the quality of TIA care Bravata et al. (BMC Neurology 19:294, 2019). Design: A stepped-wedge implementation trial with six geographically diverse sites. Participants: The six facility QI teams were multi-disciplinary, clinical staff. Interventions: PREVENT employed a bundle of key implementation strategies: team activation; external facilitation; and a community of practice. This strategy bundle had direct ties to four constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): Champions, Reflecting & Evaluating, Planning, and Goals & Feedback. Main measures: Using a mixed-methods approach guided by the CFIR and data matrix analyses, we evaluated the degree to which implementation success and clinical improvement were associated with implementation strategies. The primary outcomes were the number of completed implementation activities, the level of team organization and > 15 points improvement in the Without Fail Rate (WFR) over 1 year. Key results: Facility QI teams actively engaged in the implementation strategies with high utilization. Facilities with the greatest implementation success were those with central champions whose teams engaged in planning and goal setting, and regularly reflected upon their quality data and evaluated their progress against their QI plan. The strong presence of effective champions acted as a pre-condition for the strong presence of Reflecting & Evaluating, Goals & Feedback, and Planning (rather than the other way around), helping to explain how champions at the +2 level influenced ongoing implementation. Conclusions: The CFIR-guided bundle of implementation strategies facilitated the local implementation of the PREVENT QI program and was associated with clinical improvement in the national VA healthcare system

The protocol-guided rapid evaluation of veterans experiencing new transient neurological symptoms (PREVENT) quality improvement program: rationale and methods

Abstract Background Transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients are at high risk of recurrent vascular events; timely management can reduce that risk by 70%. The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurological Symptoms (PREVENT) developed, implemented, and evaluated a TIA quality improvement (QI) intervention aligned with Learning Healthcare System principles. Methods This stepped-wedge trial developed, implemented and evaluated a provider-facing, multi-component intervention to improve TIA care at six facilities. The unit of analysis was the medical center. The intervention was developed based on benchmarking data, staff interviews, literature, and electronic quality measures and included: performance data, clinical protocols, professional education, electronic health record tools, and QI support. The effectiveness outcome was the without-fail rate: the proportion of patients who receive all processes of care for which they are eligible among seven processes. The implementation outcomes were the number of implementation activities completed and final team organization level. The intervention effects on the without-fail rate were analyzed using generalized mixed-effects models with multilevel hierarchical random effects. Mixed methods were used to assess implementation, user satisfaction, and sustainability. Discussion PREVENT advanced three aspects of a Learning Healthcare System. Learning from Data: teams examined and interacted with their performance data to explore hypotheses, plan QI activities, and evaluate change over time. Learning from Each Other: Teams participated in monthly virtual collaborative calls. Sharing Best Practices: Teams shared tools and best practices. The approach used to design and implement PREVENT may be generalizable to other clinical conditions where time-sensitive care spans clinical settings and medical disciplines. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02769338 [May 11, 2016].https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152210/1/12883_2019_Article_1517.pd