Implementation of Smartphone Systems to Improve Quality of Life for People With Substance Use Disorder: Interim Report on a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have conducted numerous studies seeking to understand how to improve the implementation of changes in health care organizations, but less focus has been given to applying lessons already learned from implementation science. Finding innovative ways to apply these findings efficiently and consistently will improve current research on implementation strategies and allow organizations utilizing these techniques to make changes more effectively. OBJECTIVE: This research aims to compare a practical implementation approach that uses principles from prior implementation studies to more traditional ways of implementing change. METHODS: A total of 43 addiction treatment sites in Iowa were randomly assigned to 2 different implementation strategies in a randomized comparative effectiveness trial studying the implementation of an eHealth substance use disorder treatment technology. One strategy used an adaptation of the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) improvement approach, while the other used a traditional product training model. This paper discusses lessons learned about implementation. RESULTS: This midterm report indicates that use of the NIATx approach appears to be leading to improved outcomes on several measures, including initial and sustained use of new technology by both counselors and patients. Additionally, this research indicates that seamlessly integrating organizational changes into existing workflows and using coaching to overcome hurdles and assess progress are important to improve implementation projects. CONCLUSIONS: At this interim point in the study, it appears that the use of the NIATx improvement process leads to better outcomes in implementation of changes within health care organizations. Moreover, some strategies used in this improvement process are particularly useful and should be drawn on more heavily in future implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03954184; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03954184.

Clinician Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing e-Health Technology in Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Treatment Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) in the United States cause many preventable deaths each year. Finding effective ways to manage SUDs is vital to improving outcomes for individuals seeking treatment. This has increased interest in using e-health technologies in behavioral healthcare settings. This research is part of a larger study evaluating the efficacy of the NIATx coaching intervention for implementing RISE Iowa, an e-health patient recovery app, in SUD treatment organizations and seeks to examine clinician perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to its implementation. METHOD: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 clinicians from 9 different intervention sites involved in the study. RESULTS: Major barriers to implementing e-health technology include inability to access the technology, lack of time for both patients and clinicians, and a perceived lack of patient motivation to make changes. Facilitators to implementation include collaboration with other staff using e-health technology and integrating technology use into typical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of e-health technology in SUD treatment will require integrating the technology into clinical workflows and improving patient access to the technology.

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

BACKGROUND: Teleophthalmology 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: To 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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.

Test of an organizational change model to reduce no-shows in dental care settings.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of the NIATx model for organizational change to reduce appointment no-shows in dental care settings. METHODS: The NIATx Dental Pilot Study used a clustered prepost interventional design and a mixed-methods approach. Five independent dental clinics serving Medicaid enrollees were recruited. Quantitative data on the impact of the NIATx model were complemented by qualitative assessment information collected from dental staff. The NIATx model was applied through a multisite learning collaborative that engaged participating organizations in adopting targeted no-show best practices. The primary outcome measure was no-show data collected at the preintervention phase (5 months), intervention phase (7 months), and postintervention phase (3 months). RESULTS: Female patients were in the majority (median 54.5 percent). Mean age ranged from 8 to 50 (median 35.2) years. The median percentage for Hispanics was 11.0 percent, and the proportion of uninsured patients was 25 percent. Preintervention no-show rates ranged from 14 percent (clinic B) to 38 percent (clinic E). All clinics had lower no-show rates during the postintervention period, with decreases ranging from 1 percent (clinic B) to 13 percent (clinic E). Overall, the no-show rates decreased in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated the feasibility of applying the NIATx model to reduce no-show rates, with some difficulty observed with sustainability across dental practices during the postintervention period.

Sustaining Gains in Diabetic Eye Screening: Outcomes from a Stakeholder-Based Implementation Program for Teleophthalmology in Primary Care.

Background: Teleophthalmology is a validated method for diabetic eye screening that is underutilized in U.S. primary care clinics. Even when made available to patients, its long-term effectiveness for increasing screening rates is often limited. Introduction: We hypothesized that a stakeholder-based implementation program could increase teleophthalmology use and sustain improvements in diabetic eye screening. Materials and Methods:We used the NIATx Model to test a stakeholder-based teleophthalmology implementation program, I-SITE at one primary care clinic (Main) and compared teleophthalmology use and diabetic eye screening rates with those of other primary care clinics (Outreach) within a U.S. multipayer health system where teleophthalmology was underutilized.Results:Teleophthalmology use increased post-I-SITE implementation (odds ratio [OR] = 5.73 [p < 0.001]), and was greater at the Main than at the Outreach clinics (OR = 10.0 vs. 1.69, p < 0.001). Overall diabetic eye screening rates maintained an increase from 47.4% at baseline to 60.2% and 64.1% at 1 and 2 years post-I-SITE implementation, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients who were younger (OR = 0.98 per year of age, p = 0.02) and men (OR = 1.98, p = 0.002) were more likely to use teleophthalmology than in-person dilated eye examinations for diabetic eye screening.Discussion: Our stakeholder-based implementation program achieved a significant increase in overall teleophthalmology use and maintained increased post-teleophthalmology diabetic eye screening rates. Conclusion: Stakeholder-based implementation may increase the long-term reach and effectiveness of teleophthalmology to reduce vision loss from diabetes. Our approach may improve integration of telehealth interventions into primary care.

Increasing system-wide implementation of opioid prescribing guidelines in primary care: findings from a non-randomized stepped-wedge quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Clinician utilization of practice guidelines can reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing and harm in chronic non-cancer pain; yet, implementation of "opioid guidelines" is subpar. We hypothesized that a multi-component quality improvement (QI) augmentation of "routine" system-level implementation efforts would increase clinician adherence to the opioid guideline-driven policy recommendations. METHODS: Opioid policy was implemented system-wide in 26 primary care clinics. A convenience sample of 9 clinics received the QI augmentation (one-hour academic detailing; 2 online educational modules; 4-6 monthly one-hour practice facilitation sessions) in this non-randomized stepped-wedge QI project. The QI participants were volunteer clinic staff. The target patient population was adults with chronic non-cancer pain treated with long-term opioids. The outcomes included the clinic-level percentage of target patients with a current treatment agreement (primary outcome), rates of opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing, urine drug testing, depression and opioid misuse risk screening, and prescription drug monitoring database check; additional measures included daily morphine-equivalent dose (MED), and the percentages of all target patients and patients prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED. T-test, mixed-regression and stepped-wedge-based analyses evaluated the QI impact, with significance and effect size assessed with two-tailed p < 0.05, 95% confidence intervals and/or Cohen's d. RESULTS: Two-hundred-fifteen QI participants, a subset of clinical staff, received at least one QI component; 1255 patients in the QI and 1632 patients in the 17 comparison clinics were prescribed long-term opioids. At baseline, more QI than comparison clinic patients were screened for depression (8.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.019) and prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED (23.0% vs 15.5%, p = 0.038). The stepped-wedge analysis did not show statistically significant changes in outcomes in the QI clinics, when accounting for the comparison clinics' trends. The Cohen's d values favored the QI clinics in all outcomes except opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing. Subgroup analysis showed that patients prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED in the QI compared to comparison clinics improved urine drug screening rates (38.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.02), but not other outcomes (p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting routine policy implementation with targeted QI intervention, delivered to volunteer clinic staff, did not additionally improve clinic-level, opioid guideline-concordant care metrics. However, the observed effect sizes suggested this approach may be effective, especially in higher-risk patients, if broadly implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Enhancing system-wide implementation of opioid prescribing guidelines in primary care: protocol for a stepped-wedge quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Systematic implementation of guidelines for opioid therapy management in chronic non-cancer pain can reduce opioid-related harms. However, implementation of guideline-recommended practices in routine care is subpar. The goal of this quality improvement (QI) project is to assess whether a clinic-tailored QI intervention improves the implementation of a health system-wide, guideline-driven policy on opioid prescribing in primary care. This manuscript describes the protocol for this QI project. METHODS: A health system with 28 primary care clinics caring for approximately 294,000 primary care patients developed and implemented a guideline-driven policy on long-term opioid therapy in adults with opioid-treated chronic non-cancer pain (estimated N = 3980). The policy provided multiple recommendations, including the universal use of treatment agreements, urine drug testing, depression and opioid misuse risk screening, and standardized documentation of the chronic pain diagnosis and treatment plan. The project team drew upon existing guidelines, feedback from end-users, experts and health system leadership to develop a robust QI intervention, targeting clinic-level implementation of policy-directed practices. The resulting multi-pronged QI intervention included clinic-wide and individual clinician-level educational interventions. The QI intervention will augment the health system's "routine rollout" method, consisting of a single educational presentation to clinicians in group settings and a separate presentation for staff. A stepped-wedge design will enable 9 primary care clinics to receive the intervention and assessment of within-clinic and between-clinic changes in adherence to the policy items measured by clinic-level electronic health record-based measures and process measures of the experience with the intervention. DISCUSSION: Developing methods for a health system-tailored QI intervention required a multi-step process to incorporate end-user feedback and account for the needs of targeted clinic team members. Delivery of such tailored QI interventions has the potential to enhance uptake of opioid therapy management policies in primary care. Results from this study are anticipated to elucidate the relative value of such QI activities.