"We should be resourcing their liberation:" a qualitative formative study to guide introduction of a systems engineering intervention at a King County, WA juvenile detention center clinic.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing efforts to eliminate juvenile detention in King County, WA. An essential element of this work is effectively addressing the health needs of youth who are currently detained to improve their wellbeing and reduce further contact with the criminal legal system. This formative study sought to inform adaptation and piloting of an evidence-based systems engineering strategy - the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) - in a King County juvenile detention center clinic to improve quality and continuity of healthcare services. Our aims were to describe the priority health needs of young people who are involved in Washington's criminal legal system and the current system of healthcare for young people who are detained. METHODS: We conducted nine individual interviews with providers serving youth. We also obtained de-identified quantitative summary reports of quality improvement discussions held between clinic staff and 13 young people who were detained at the time of data collection. Interview transcripts were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding and quantitative data were used to triangulate emergent themes. RESULTS: Providers identified three priority healthcare cascades for detention-based health services-mental health, substance use, and primary healthcare-and reported that care for these concerns is often introduced for the first time in detention. Interviewees classified incarceration itself as a health hazard, highlighting the paradox of resourcing healthcare quality improvement interventions in an inherently harmful setting. Fractured communication and collaboration across detention- and community-based entities drives systems-level inefficiencies, obstructs access to health and social services for marginalized youth, and fragments the continuum of care for young people establishing care plans while detained in King County. 31% of youth self-reported receiving episodic healthcare prior to detention, 15% reported never having medical care prior to entering detention, and 46% had concerns about finding healthcare services upon release to the community. CONCLUSIONS: Systems engineering interventions such as the SAIA may be appropriate and feasible approaches to build systems thinking across and between services, remedy systemic challenges, and ensure necessary information sharing for care continuity. However, more information is needed directly from youth to draw conclusions about effective pathways for healthcare quality improvement.

The Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach: specifying core components of an implementation strategy to optimize care cascades in public health.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems in low-resource settings need simple, low-cost interventions to improve services and address gaps in care. Though routine data provide opportunities to guide these efforts, frontline providers are rarely engaged in analyzing them for facility-level decision making. The Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) is an evidence-based, multi-component implementation strategy that engages providers in use of facility-level data to promote systems-level thinking and quality improvement (QI) efforts within multi-step care cascades. SAIA was originally developed to address HIV care in resource-limited settings but has since been adapted to a variety of clinical care systems including cervical cancer screening, mental health treatment, and hypertension management, among others; and across a variety of settings in sub-Saharan Africa and the USA. We aimed to extend the growing body of SAIA research by defining the core elements of SAIA using established specification approaches and thus improve reproducibility, guide future adaptations, and lay the groundwork to define its mechanisms of action. METHODS: Specification of the SAIA strategy was undertaken over 12 months by an expert panel of SAIA-researchers, implementing agents and stakeholders using a three-round, modified nominal group technique approach to match core SAIA components to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) list of distinct implementation strategies. Core implementation strategies were then specified according to Proctor's recommendations for specifying and reporting, followed by synthesis of data on related implementation outcomes linked to the SAIA strategy across projects. RESULTS: Based on this review and clarification of the operational definitions of the components of the SAIA, the four components of SAIA were mapped to 13 ERIC strategies. SAIA strategy meetings encompassed external facilitation, organization of provider implementation meetings, and provision of ongoing consultation. Cascade analysis mapped to three ERIC strategies: facilitating relay of clinical data to providers, use of audit and feedback of routine data with healthcare teams, and modeling and simulation of change. Process mapping matched to local needs assessment, local consensus discussions and assessment of readiness and identification of barriers and facilitators. Finally, continuous quality improvement encompassed tailoring strategies, developing a formal implementation blueprint, cyclical tests of change, and purposefully re-examining the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: Specifying the components of SAIA provides improved conceptual clarity to enhance reproducibility for other researchers and practitioners interested in applying the SAIA across novel settings.