Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies

Incorporating clinical guidelines through clinician decision-making

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is generally acknowledged that a disparity between knowledge and its implementation is adversely affecting quality of care. An example commonly cited is the failure of clinicians to follow clinical guidelines. A guiding assumption of this view is that adherence should be gauged by a standard of conformance. At least some guideline developers dispute this assumption and claim that their efforts are intended to inform and assist clinical practice, not to function as standards of performance. However, their ability to assist and inform will remain limited until an alternative to the conformance criterion is proposed that gauges how evidence-based guidelines are incorporated into clinical decisions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The proposed investigation has two specific aims to identify the processes that affect decisions about incorporating clinical guidelines, and then to develop ad test a strategy that promotes the utilization of evidence-based practices. This paper focuses on the first aim. It presents the rationale, introduces the clinical paradigm of treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and discusses an exemplar of clinician non-conformance to a clinical guideline. A modification of the original study is proposed that targets psychiatric trainees and draws on a cognitively rich theory of decision-making to formulate hypotheses about how the guideline is incorporated into treatment decisions. Twenty volunteer subjects recruited from an accredited psychiatry training program will respond to sixty-four vignettes that represent a fully crossed 2 × 2 × 2 × 4 within-subjects design. The variables consist of criteria contained in the clinical guideline and other relevant factors. Subjects will also respond to a subset of eight vignettes that assesses their overall impression of the guideline. Generalization estimating equation models will be used to test the study's principal hypothesis and perform secondary analyses.</p> <p>Implications</p> <p>The original design of phase two of the proposed investigation will be changed in recognition of newly published literature on the relative effectiveness of treatments for schizophrenia. It is suggested that this literature supports the notion that guidelines serve a valuable function as decision tools, and substantiates the importance of decision-making as the means by which general principles are incorporated into clinical practice.</p

Usual Primary Care Provider Characteristics of a Patient-Centered Medical Home and Mental Health Service Use

BACKGROUND: The benefits of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) over and above that of a usual source of medical care have yet to be determined, particularly for adults with mental health disorders. OBJECTIVE: To examine qualities of a usual provider that align with PCMH goals of access, comprehensiveness, and patient-centered care, and to determine whether PCMH qualities in a usual provider are associated with the use of mental health services (MHS). DESIGN: Using national data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we conducted a lagged cross-sectional study of MHS use subsequent to participant reports of psychological distress and usual provider and practice characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2,358 adults, aged 18–64 years, met the criteria for serious psychological distress and reported on their usual provider and practice characteristics. MAIN MEASURES: We defined “usual provider” as a primary care provider/practice, and “PCMH provider” as a usual provider that delivered accessible, comprehensive, patient-centered care as determined by patient self-reporting. The dependent variable, MHS, included self-reported mental health visits to a primary care provider or mental health specialist, counseling, and psychiatric medication treatment over a period of 1 year. RESULTS: Participants with a usual provider were significantly more likely than those with no usual provider to have experienced a primary care mental health visit (marginal effect [ME] = 8.5, 95 % CI = 3.2–13.8) and to have received psychiatric medication (ME = 15.5, 95 % CI = 9.4–21.5). Participants with a PCMH were additionally more likely than those with no usual provider to visit a mental health specialist (ME = 7.6, 95 % CI = 0.7–14.4) and receive mental health counseling (ME = 8.5, 95 % CI = 1.5–15.6). Among those who reported having had any type of mental health visit, participants with a PCMH were more likely to have received mental health counseling than those with only a usual provider (ME = 10.0, 95 % CI = 1.0–19.0). CONCLUSIONS: Access to a usual provider is associated with increased receipt of needed MHS. Patients who have a usual provider with PCMH qualities are more likely to receive mental health counseling