Assessing the implementation of nurse practitioner-led huddles in long-term care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created major challenges in long-term care (LTC) homes across Canada and globally. A nurse practitioner-led interdisciplinary huddle intervention was developed to support staff wellbeing in two LTC homes in Ontario, Canada. The objective of this study was to identify the constructs strongly influencing the process of implementation of huddles across both sites, capturing the overall barriers and facilitators and the intervention's intrinsic properties. METHODS: Nineteen participants were interviewed about their experiences, pre-, post-, and during huddle implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide data collection and analysis. CFIR rating rules and a cross-comparison analysis was used to identify differentiating factors between sites. A novel extension to the CFIR analysis process was designed to assess commonly influential factors across both sites. RESULTS: Nineteen of twenty selected CFIR constructs were coded in interviews from both sites. Five constructs were determined to be strongly influential across both implementation sites and a detailed description is provided: evidence strength and quality; needs and resources of those served by the organization; leadership engagement; relative priority; and champions. A summary of ratings and an illustrative quote are provided for each construct. CONCLUSION: Successful huddles require long-term care leaders to consider their involvement, the inclusion all team members to help build relationships and foster cohesion, and the integration of nurse practitioners as full-time staff members within LTC homes to support staff and facilitate initiatives for wellbeing. This research provides an example of a novel approach using the CFIR methodology, extending its use to identify significant factors for implementation when it is not possible to compare differences in success.

Implementation of a novel program to support colorectal cancer screening in a community health center consortium before and after the onset of COVID-19: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN) established the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Program to provide technical assistance and financial support to improve CRC screening processes, and outcomes in a consortium of community health centers (CHCs) serving low-income communities in San Francisco. The purpose of this study was twofold: to evaluate the perceived influence of the support provided by the CRC Screening Program's Task Force on CRC screening processes and outcomes in these settings and to identify facilitators and barriers to SF CAN-supported CRC screening activities before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with consortium leaders, medical directors, quality improvement team members, and clinic screening champions. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed for themes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to develop the interview questions and organize the analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants were interviewed. The most commonly cited facilitators of improved screening processes included the expertise, funding, screening resources, regular follow-up, and sustained engagement with clinic leaders provided by the task force. The most salient barriers identified were patient characteristics, such as housing instability; staffing challenges, such as being understaffed and experiencing high staff turnover; and clinic-level challenges, such as lack of ability to implement and sustain formalized patient navigation strategies, and changes in clinic priorities due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other competing health care priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing CRC screening programs in a consortium of CHCs is inherently challenging. Technical assistance from the Task Force was viewed positively and helped to mitigate challenges both before and during the pandemic. Future research should explore opportunities to increase the robustness of technical assistance offered by groups such as SF CAN to support cancer screening activities in CHCs serving low-income communities.

Lessons Learned and Future Actions: Modifying a Stroke Specific Self-Management Program.

Background: Self-management programs have been shown to be effective at providing support to individuals who want to manage chronic health conditions independently. It has been shown that adapting self-management programs for different diagnostic groups, such as stroke, is essential. Objective: To report modifications made during trial implementation, the barriers identified during the delivery of an evidence based, stroke-specific self-management program and minor data (including strategies made) from a small cohort of stroke survivors with multiple chronic conditions. Methods: Prospective type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial for stroke survivors, with chronic conditions, living in the community, and interested in self-management. Modifications were reported by the following: (1) researcher reflections (2) barriers to implementation and (3) strategies used to address the barrier using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guidelines from field notes. Results: Twenty-five individuals consented (42% of eligible sample) at the time of acute stroke and five were interested in continuing at the 3-month call. Multiple barriers to implementation were identified, resulting in modifications. For example, before the group sessions began, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated changes to the intervention delivery. The protocol was modified to an online mode of delivery. In total, there were seven modifications made. Conclusions: The CFIR was a facilitative tool to report barriers and strategies and emphasized the importance of comprehensive reporting. The modifications to the study were an essential first step to address the research climate and needs of this stroke cohort. Next steps include continued research with a larger cohort to implement effective strategies and answer the clinical question of effectiveness of the adapted and modified intervention.

Using formative evaluation of a community-based opioid overdose prevention program to inform strategic communication for adoption, implementation, and sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Opioid addiction and overdose is a public health problem in the United States and is expected to remain with substance use increasing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities that approach this issue through multi-sector partnerships experience more positive health outcomes. Understanding motivation for stakeholder engagement in these efforts is essential to successful adoption, implementation, and sustainability particularly in the shifting landscape of needs and resources. METHODS: A formative evaluation was conducted on the C.L.E.A.R. Program in Massachusetts, a state heavily impacted by the opioid epidemic. A stakeholder power analysis identified appropriate stakeholders for the study (n = 9). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data collection and analysis. Surveys (n = 8) examined perception and attitudes on the program; motivations and communication for engagement; and, benefits and barriers to collaboration. Stakeholder interviews (n = 6) explored the quantitative findings in more detail. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a content analysis with deductive approach was conducted for stakeholder interviews. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory guided recommendations for communications to engage stakeholders. RESULTS: Agencies represented a range of sectors and the majority (n = 5) were familiar with the C.L.E.A.R. PROGRAM: Despite the many strengths of the program and existing collaboration, based on the coding densities of each CFIR construct stakeholders identified crucial gaps in the services the program provided and noted that the overall infrastructure of the program could be enhanced. Opportunities for strategic communication to address the stages of DOI align with the gaps identified in the CFIR domains to result in increased agency collaboration and expansion of services into the surrounding communities to ensure sustainability of the C.L.E.A.R. CONCLUSIONS: This study explored factors necessary for ongoing multi-sector collaboration and sustainability of an existing community-based program especially given the changing context from COVID-19. Findings informed both program revisions and communication strategies to promote the program to new and existing collaborating agencies and the community served, and identify effective communication approaches across sectors. This is essential for successful implementation and sustainability of the program, especially as it is adapted and expanded to address post-pandemic times. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study does not report results of a health care intervention on human participants, however it was reviewed and determined an exempt study with the Boston University Institutional Review Board (IRB #H-42107).

The Potential for Managed Alcohol Programmes in Scotland during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Exploration of Key Areas for Implementation Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

People experiencing homelessness and alcohol dependence are at increased risk of a range of harms, including from COVID-19. Managed Alcohol Programmes (MAPs) are an alcohol harm reduction intervention specifically for this group. In this paper we report on qualitative findings of a mixed methods study investigating the potential utility of MAPs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland. Interviews, conducted with 40 participants, explored potential views of implementing MAPs during the pandemic. Theoretically, we drew on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform data collection and analysis. Six themes were identified which mapped onto three CFIR domains: perceptions of MAPs and the evidence base; necessary components of MAPs; changing culture of alcohol harm reduction; MAPs as a moral and ethical grey area; addressing a service gap; and securing buy-in and partnership working. Participants were generally positive about MAPs and viewed them as a key intervention to address a service gap. Several necessary components were identified for successful implementation of MAPs. Securing buy-in from a range of stakeholders and partnership working were deemed important. Finally, MAPs require careful, long-term planning before implementation. We conclude that MAPs are needed in Scotland and require long-term funding and appropriate resources to ensure they are successful.

Implementation of a Statewide Web-Based Caregiver Resource Information System (CareNav): Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: With the aging population, family caregivers provide increasingly complex and intense care for older adults and persons with disabilities. There is growing interest in developing community-based services to support family caregivers. Caregiving occurs around the clock, and caregivers face challenges in accessing community-based services at convenient times owing to the demands of care. Web-based resources hold promise for accessible real-time support. CareNav (TM), a caregiver resource information system, is a web-based platform designed to support real-time universal caregiver assessment, a record of client encounters, development of a care plan, tailored information and resource content, access to web-based caregiver resources, the capacity to track service authorization and contracts, and secure communications. The assessment includes needs and health conditions of both the care recipient and caregiver; current resources; and priorities for support, information, and referral. In 2019, the California Department of Health Care Services funded the 11 nonprofit California Caregiver Resource Centers (CRCs) to expand and improve family caregiver services and enhance CRC information technology services. Deployment of a statewide information system offered a unique opportunity to examine structures and processes facilitating implementation, providing feedback to the sites as well as lessons learned for similar projects in the future. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to describe the statewide implementation of the comprehensive CareNav system using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as an organizing structure for synthesizing the evaluation. METHODS: This mixed methods study used two major approaches to evaluate the implementation process: a survey of all staff who completed training (n=82) and in-depth qualitative interviews with 11 CRC teams and 3 key informants (n=35). We initially analyzed interview transcripts using qualitative descriptive methods and then identified subthemes and relationships among ideas, mapping the findings to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: We present findings on the outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the intervention, characteristics of the staff, and the implementation process. The critical elements for success were leadership, communication, harmonization of processes across sites, and motivation to serve clients in more accessible and convenient ways. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for technology deployment in diverse community-based agencies that aspire to enhance web-based services.

Understanding the Experience of Geriatric Care Professionals in Using Telemedicine to Care for Older Patients in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric care professionals were forced to rapidly adopt the use of telemedicine technologies to ensure the continuity of care for their older patients in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is little current literature that describes how telemedicine technologies can best be used to meet the needs of geriatric care professionals in providing care to frail older patients, their caregivers, and their families. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the benefits and challenges geriatric care professionals face when using telemedicine technologies with frail older patients, their caregivers, and their families and how to maximize the benefits of this method of providing care. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study that recruited geriatric care professionals to complete an online survey regarding their personal demographics and experiences with using telemedicine technologies and participate in a semistructured interview. Interview responses were analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained from 30 practicing geriatric care professionals (22, 73%, geriatricians, 5, 17%, geriatric psychiatrists, and 3, 10%, geriatric nurse practitioners) recruited from across the Greater Toronto Area. Analysis of interview data identified 5 CFIR contextual barriers (complexity, design quality and packaging, patient needs and resources, readiness for implementation, and culture) and 13 CFIR contextual facilitators (relative advantage, adaptability, tension for change, available resources, access to knowledge, networks and communications, compatibility, knowledge and beliefs, self-efficacy, champions, external agents, executing, and reflecting and evaluating). The CFIR concept of external policy and incentives was found to be a neutral construct. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first known study to use the CFIR to develop a comprehensive narrative to characterize the experiences of Ontario geriatric care professionals using telemedicine technologies in providing care. Overall, telemedicine can significantly enable most of the geriatric care that is traditionally provided in person but is less useful in providing specific aspects of geriatric care to frail older patients, their caregivers, and their families.

Rapid Cycle Implementation and Retrospective Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Checklist in Labor and Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Preparedness efforts for a COVID-19 outbreak required redesign and implementation of a perioperative workflow for the management of obstetric patients. In this report we describe factors which influenced rapid cycle implementation of a novel comprehensive checklist for the perioperative care of the COVID-19 parturient. METHODS: Within our labour and delivery unit, implementation of a novel checklist for the COVID-19 parturient requiring perioperative care was accomplished through rapid cycling, debriefing and on-site walkthroughs. Post-implementation, consistent use of the checklist was reported for all obstetric COVID-19 perioperative cases (100% workflow checklist utilization). Retrospective analysis of the factors influencing implementation was performed using a group deliberation approach, mapped against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Analysis of factors influencing implementation using CFIR revealed domains of process implementation and innovation characteristics as overwhelming facilitators for success. Constructs within the outer setting, inner setting, and characteristic of individuals (external pressures, baseline culture, and personal attributes) were perceived to act as early barriers. Constructs such as communication culture and learning climate, shifted in influence over time. CONCLUSION: We describe the influential factors of implementing a novel comprehensive obstetric workflow for care of the COVID-19 perioperative parturient during the first surge of the pandemic using the CFIR framework. Early workflow adoption was facilitated primarily by two domains, namely thoughtful innovation design and careful implementation planning in the setting of a long-standing culture of improvement. Factors initially assessed as barriers such as communication, culture and learning climate, transitioned into facilitators once a perceived benefit was experienced by healthcare teams. These results provide important information for the implementation of rapid change during a time of crisis.

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services.

BACKGROUND: Seven housing and health services organizations were guided through a process of translating Chapter Six of the Canadian Guidelines for Recovery-Oriented Practice into a recovery-oriented innovation and plan for its implementation. At the time of the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown measures, six of the seven organizations had begun implementing their chosen innovation (peer workers, wellness recovery action planning facilitator training, staff training and a family support group). This mid-implementation study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify contextual factors that influenced organizations to continue or postpone implementation of recovery-oriented innovations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Twenty-seven semi-structured 45-min interviews were conducted between May and June 2020 (21 implementation team members and six providers of the innovation (trainers, facilitators, peer workers). Interview guides and analysis were based on the CFIR. Content analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches. Summaries of coded data were given ratings based on strength and valence of the construct's impact on implementation. Ratings were visualized by mid-implementation outcome and recovery innovation to identify constructs which appear to distinguish between sites with a more or less favorable mid-implementation outcomes. RESULTS: Four mid-implementation outcomes were observed at this snapshot in time (from most to least positive): continued implementation with adaptation (one site), postponement with adaptation and estimated relaunch date (four sites), indefinite postponement with no decision on relaunch date (one site), and no implementation of innovation yet (one site). Two constructs had either a negative influence (external policies and incentives-renamed COVID-19-related external policy for this study) or a positive influence (leadership engagement), regardless of implementation outcome. Four factors appeared to distinguish between more or less positive mid-implementation outcome: adaptability, implementation climate and relative priority, available resources, and formally appointed internal implementation leaders (renamed "engaging implementation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic" for this study). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented outer setting factor. Studies that use the CFIR at the mid-implementation stage are rare, as are studies focusing on the outer setting. Through robust qualitative analysis, we identify the key factors that shaped the course of implementation of recovery innovations over this turbulent time.