Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems? METHODS: During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention's core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts. RESULTS: Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test. CONCLUSIONS: This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

Optimizing process flow diagrams to guide implementation of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in new settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess acceptability of using process flow diagrams (or process maps) depicting a previously implemented evidence-based intervention (EBI) to inform the implementation of similar interventions in new settings. METHODS: We developed three different versions of process maps, each visualizing the implementation of the same multicomponent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBI in community health centers but including varying levels of detail about how it was implemented. Interviews with community health professionals and practitioners at other sites not affiliated with this intervention were conducted. We assessed their preferences related to the map designs, their potential utility for guiding EBI implementation, and the feasibility of implementing a similar intervention in their local setting given the information available in the process maps. RESULTS: Eleven community health representatives were interviewed. Participants were able to understand how the intervention was implemented and engage in discussions around the feasibility of implementing this type of complex intervention in their local system. Potential uses of the maps for supporting implementation included staff training, role delineation, monitoring and quality control, and adapting the components and implementation activities of the existing intervention. CONCLUSION: Process maps can potentially support decision-making about the adoption, implementation, and adaptation of existing EBIs in new contexts. Given the complexities involved in deciding whether and how to implement EBIs, these diagrams serve as visual, easily understood tools to inform potential future adopters of the EBI about the activities, resources, and staffing needed for implementation.

Impact of a Community-Based Weight Management Program in a North Carolina Health Care System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current strategies for obesity management in primary care leave many patients inadequately treated or unable to access treatment entirely. We aimed to evaluate a comprehensive, primary care clinic-based weight management program's clinical effectiveness in a community practice setting.  Methods:  This was an 18-month pre/postintervention study. We collected demographic and anthropometric data on patients enrolled in a primary care-based weight management program. The primary outcomes were percent weight loss postintervention and the proportion of patients who achieved a clinically significant total body weight loss (TBWL) of 5% or greater.  Results:  Our program served 550 patients over 1,952 visits from March 2019 through October 2020. A total of 209 patients had adequate program exposure, defined as four or more completed visits. Among these, all received targeted lifestyle counseling and 78% received antiobesity medication. Patients who attended at least four visits had an average TBWL of 5.7% compared to an average gain of 1.5% total body weight for those with only one visit. Fifty-three percent of patients (n=111) achieved greater than 5% TBWL, and 20% (n=43) achieved greater than 10% TBWL. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that a community-based weight management program delivered by obesity medicine-trained primary care providers effectively produces clinically significant weight loss. Future work will include wider implementation of this model to increase patient access to evidence-based obesity treatments in their communities.

Building High-Performance Team Dynamics for Rapid Response Events in a US Tertiary Hospital: A Quality Improvement Model for Sustainable Process Change.

Hospital rapid response systems are designed to reduce unmet patient needs and prevent clinical deterioration. Rapid response teams are the principal component of a rapid response system and require teamwork to function optimally; poor communication among team members can result in substandard patient care. The authors describe a process for developing and implementing standardized communication and a teamwork structure for rapid response events (RREs) at a large academic hospital. The multidisciplinary team developed a project charter and key driver diagram, developed a "communication bundle," used quality improvement methodology, monitored adherence to the changes, and reported these data to key stakeholders on a weekly basis. By project end, the team met the goal of having 70% or more of adult RREs include the use of the "communication bundle." The balancing measure demonstrated that the introduction of a formalized communication framework did not significantly increase the duration of RREs.

Quality Improvement Principles and Practice.

Quality improvement strategies are important means for achieving high-quality, patient-centered care, and can improve provider satisfaction as well. This article outlines some key principles for how to implement quality improvement effectively in primary care practice, drawing from the authors' collective experience in leading such efforts.

Implementing Evidence-Based Screening and Counseling for Unhealthy Alcohol Use with Epic-Based Electronic Health Record Tools.

BACKGROUND: Multiple national organizations recommend screening and counseling adults for unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS: An evidence-based approach to screening and counseling using Epic electronic health record (EHR) tools was implemented in a general medicine clinic. A dissemination package with actionable steps for clinics and systems wishing to implement similar processes was then produced. To evaluate the initial implementation and quality improvement project, run charts were created to track patients screened, patients counseled, and fidelity to protocols, and members of the original project team were interviewed to assess facilitators and barriers. The draft dissemination package was revised after feedback from health system representatives (key informants). RESULTS: More than 9,000 patients (73.9% of those eligible) were screened in 20 months. Sixty-four percent of patients with positive initial screens had documented screening-related assessment; 39.7% (141/355) were offered counseling when indicated. Initial project team members identified EHR tools, clinic leadership, quality improvement culture, a multidisciplinary team, and training for providers and nurses as facilitators; and competing demands, patient population size, and nursing staff/resident turnover as barriers. Six key informants evaluated the dissemination package. Most rated 10 of the 12 sections as very useful; all rated components specific to implementing alcohol screening and counseling as very useful. Ratings for general guidance on implementing evidence-based services in primary care were more mixed. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use can be implemented with EHR tools. A dissemination guide was viewed favorably by key informants and can serve as a guide for other clinics and systems.

Multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative to standardize reporting of lung cancer screening.

Structured reporting of lung cancer screening (LCS) results with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is necessary for appropriate follow-up and management of lung nodules. We describe processes for standardizing the reporting and tracking of screen-detected lung nodules by increasing documentation of Lung-RADS categorization of lung nodules. Our multidisciplinary team developed a project charter and key driver diagram, revised the radiology reporting template, and provided monthly audit reports to thoracic radiologists. Quarterly from Q1-2015 to Q2-2016, we measured the proportion of screening LDCT reports that included a documented Lung-RADS category. In Q1- and Q2-2015, no LDCT scans contained a Lung-RADS assessment. By the end of Q1-2016, 94% of screening LDCTs contained a Lung-RADS assessment with a recommended follow-up action. We developed systematic processes for lung nodule categorization, documentation, and tracking using Lung-RADS that improved structured reporting at one academic medical center.

Improving the Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines at an Academic Primary Care Practice.

Expert groups recommend annual chest computed tomography for lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk patients. Lung cancer screening in primary care is a complex process that includes identification of the at-risk population, comorbidity assessment, and shared decision making. We identified three key processes required for high-quality screening implementation in our academic primary care practice: (1) systematic collection of lifetime cumulative smoking history to identify potentially eligible patients; (2) visit-based clinical reminders and order sets embedded in the electronic health record (EHR); and (3) tools to facilitate shared decision making and appropriate test ordering. We applied quality improvement techniques to address gaps in these processes. Over 12 months, we developed and implemented a nurse protocol for collecting complete smoking history and entering that data into discrete EHR fields. We obtained histories on over 50% of the clinic's more than 2,300 known current and former smokers, aged 55-80 years. We then built and pilot tested an automated visit-based reminder (VBR) system, driven by the discrete smoking history data. The VBR included an order set and template for documentation of shared decision making. Physicians interacted with the VBR in approximately 30% of opportunities for use. Further work is needed to better understand how to systematically provide appropriate LCS in primary care environments.

Implementation and Quality Improvement of a Screening and Counseling Program for Unhealthy Alcohol Use in an Academic General Internal Medicine Practice.

Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for unhealthy alcohol use but little is known about how best to do so. We used quality improvement techniques to implement a systematic approach to screening and counseling primary care patients for unhealthy alcohol use. Components included use of validated screening and assessment instruments; an evidence-based two-visit counseling intervention using motivational interviewing techniques for those with risky drinking behaviors who did not have an alcohol use disorder (AUD); shared decision making about treatment options for those with an AUD; support materials for providers and patients; and training in motivational interviewing for faculty and residents. Over the course of one year, we screened 52% (N = 5,352) of our clinic's patients and identified 294 with positive screens. Of those 294, appropriate screening-related assessments and interventions were documented for 168 and 72 patients, respectively. Although we successfully implemented a systematic screening program and structured processes of care, ongoing quality improvement efforts are needed to screen the rest of our patients and to improve the consistency with which we provide and document appropriate interventions.

Pharmacist-coordinated multidisciplinary hospital follow-up visits improve patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act of 2010 allows for the adjustment of reimbursement to health care centers based on 30-day readmission rates. High readmission rates may be explained by multiple events at discharge, including medication errors that occur during the transition of care from inpatient to outpatient. Pharmacist involvement at discharge has been shown to improve health outcomes in patients with chronic disease; however, there is limited knowledge regarding the benefits of a clinic appointment with a pharmacist postdischarge. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospital readmission rates and interventions in a multidisciplinary team visit coordinated by a clinical pharmacist practitioner with those conducted by a physician-only team within an internal medicine hospital follow-up program. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was completed. Patients seen between May 2012 and January 2013 in 1 of the 2 hospital follow-up program models (multidisciplinary team or physician-only team) were included. RESULTS: A total of 140 patient visits were included for 124 patients. Patients seen by the multidisciplinary team had a 30-day readmission rate of 14.3% compared with 34.3% by the physician-only team (P=0.010). Interventions completed during the visits, including addressing nonadherence, initiating a new medication, and discontinuing a medication were also statistically different between the groups, with the multidisciplinary team completing these interventions more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital follow-up visits coordinated by the multidisciplinary team decreased 30-day hospital readmission rates compared with follow-up visits by a physician-only team.

Results of an enhanced clinic handoff and resident education on resident patient ownership and patient safety.

PURPOSE: Although internal medicine resident clinic handoffs present risks for patients, few interventions exist. The authors evaluated an enhanced handoff. METHOD: In 2011, the authors formalized a handoff protocol including a standardized sign-out process, resident education, improved scheduling, and time to establish care through telephone visits. The authors surveyed 25 residents in 2011 and 19 in 2010 regarding their perceptions and performed chart audits to examine patient outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with 2010, residents in 2011 reported longer handoffs (>20 minutes, 52% versus 6%, P<.01), more verbal handoffs (80% versus 38%, P<.01), more patients aware of the handoff (100% versus 74%, P=.01), less discomfort with paperwork for patients not yet seen (40% versus 74%, P=.03), and more ownership of patients before the first visit (56% versus 26%, P=.05). In 2011, more patients saw their correct primary care provider (82% versus 44%, P<.01), and more tests were followed up appropriately (67% versus 46%, P=.02). The authors detected in 2011 a trend for patients to be seen the month their physician intended (40% versus 33%, P=.06) and a trend toward fewer acute (hospital and emergency department) visits three months post handoff (20% versus 26%, P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing clinic handoffs can improve the handoff process, increase the likelihood of patients seeing the correct primary care provider within the target time frame, reduce missed tests, and possibly reduce acute visits.

Outcomes for resident-identified high-risk patients and resident perspectives of year-end continuity clinic handoffs.

BACKGROUND: Many patients nationwide change their primary care physician (PCP) when internal medicine (IM) residents graduate. Few studies have examined this handoff. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient outcomes and resident perspectives after the year-end continuity clinic handoff DESIGN: Retrospective cohort PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2010 and a comparison group of all other resident clinic patients from 2009-2011. PGY2 IM residents surveyed from 2010-2011. MEASUREMENTS: Percent of high-risk patients after the clinic handoff scheduled for an appointment, who saw their assigned PCP, lost to follow-up, or had an acute visit (ED or hospitalization). Perceptions of PGY2 IM residents surveyed after receiving a clinic handoff. RESULTS: Thirty graduating residents identified 258 high-risk patients. While nearly all patients (97 %) were scheduled, 29 % missed or cancelled their first new PCP visit. Only 44 % of patients saw the correct PCP and six months later, one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients not seen by a new PCP after the handoff were less likely to have appropriate follow-up for pending tests (0 % vs. 63 %, P<0.001). A higher mean no show rate (NSR) was observed among patients who missed their first new PCP visit (22 % vs. 16 % NSR, p<0.001) and those lost to follow-up (21 % vs. 17 % NSR, p=0.019). While 47 % of residents worried about missing important data during the handoff, 47 % reported that they do not perceive patients as "theirs" until they are seen by them in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were scheduled for appointments after a clinic handoff, many did not see the correct resident and one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are especially at risk of poor clinic handoff outcomes. Future efforts should improve patient attendance to their first new PCP visit and increase PCP ownership.