Using the Matrixed Multiple Case Study approach to identify factors affecting the uptake of IPV screening programs following the use of implementation facilitation.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent social determinant of health. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine IPV screening of women, but uptake remains variable. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated implementation facilitation (IF) to support integration of IPV screening programs into primary care clinics. An evaluation of IF efforts showed variability in IPV screening rates across sites. The follow-up study presented here used a Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS) approach to examine the multilevel factors impacting IPV screening program implementation across sites with varying levels of implementation success. METHODS: This mixed methods study is part of a larger cluster randomized stepped wedge Hybrid-II program evaluation. In the larger trial, participating sites received 6 months of IF consisting of an external facilitator from VHA's Office of Women's Health working closely with an internal facilitator and key site personnel. Recognizing the heterogeneity in implementation outcomes across sites, the MMCS approach was used to enable interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data within and across sites to help contextualize the primary findings from the larger study. Qualitative data collection was guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and included interviews with key informants involved in IPV screening implementation at eight sites. Quantitative data on IPV screening uptake was derived from medical records and surveys completed by key personnel at the same eight sites to understand implementation facilitation activities. RESULTS: Fifteen factors influencing IPV screening implementation spanning all four i-PARIHS domains were identified and categorized into three distinct categories: (1) factors with enabling influence across all sites, (2) factors deemed important to implementation success, and (3) factors differentiating sites with high/medium versus low implementation success. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the influencing factors across multi-level domains contributing to variable success of IPV screening implementation can inform the tailoring of IF efforts to promote spread and quality of screening. Implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care with IF should consider consistent engagement of internal facilitators with clinic staff involved in implementation, the resourcefulness of external facilitators, and appending resources to IPV screening tools to help key personnel address positive screens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04106193. Registered on September 26, 2019.

Integrating Intimate Partner Violence Screening Programs in Primary Care: Results from a Hybrid-II Implementation-Effectiveness RCT.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration initiated implementation facilitation to integrate intimate partner screening programs in primary care. This study investigates implementation facilitation's impact on implementation and clinical effectiveness outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, hybrid-II implementation-effectiveness trial (January 2021-April 2022) was conducted amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Implementation facilitation was applied at 9 Veterans Health Administration facilities, staged across 2 waves. Participants were all women receiving care at participating primary care clinics 3 months before (pre-implementation facilitation n=2,272) and 9 months after initiation of implementation facilitation (implementation facilitation n=5,149). INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation included an operations-funded external facilitator working for 6 months with a facility-funded internal facilitator from participating clinics. The pre-implementation facilitation period comprised implementation as usual in the Veterans Health Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were changes in (1) reach of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening programs among eligible women (i.e., those seen within participating clinics during the assessment period; implementation outcome) and (2) disclosure rates among screened women (effectiveness outcome). Secondary outcomes included disclosure rates among all eligible women and post-screening psychosocial service use. Administrative data were analyzed. RESULTS: For primary outcomes, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were nearly 3 times more likely to be screened for IPV than women seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.70, 95% CI=2.46, 2.97). Women screened during the implementation facilitation period were not more likely to disclose IPV than those screened during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.86, 1.51). For secondary outcomes, owing to increased reach of screening during implementation facilitation, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were more likely to disclose IPV than those seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.09, 95% CI=1.52, 2.86). Women screened during implementation facilitation were more likely to use post-screening psychosocial services than those screened during pre-implementation facilitation (OR=1.29, 95% CI=1.06, 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that implementation facilitation may be a promising strategy for increasing the reach of IPV screening programs in primary care, thereby increasing IPV detection and strengthening connections to support services among the patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04106193.

The Perceived Effectiveness of Secure Messaging for Medication Reconciliation During Transitions of Care: Semistructured Interviews With Patients.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies can lead to adverse drug events and patient harm. Medication reconciliation is a process intended to reduce medication discrepancies. We developed a Secure Messaging for Medication Reconciliation Tool (SMMRT), integrated into a web-based patient portal, to identify and reconcile medication discrepancies during transitions from hospital to home. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize patients' perceptions of the ease of use and effectiveness of SMMRT. METHODS: We recruited 20 participants for semistructured interviews from a sample of patients who had participated in a randomized controlled trial of SMMRT. Interview transcripts were transcribed and then qualitatively analyzed to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Although most patients found SMMRT easy to view at home, many patients struggled to return SMMRT through secure messaging to clinicians due to technology-related barriers. Patients who did use SMMRT indicated that it was time-saving and liked that they could review it at their own pace and in the comfort of their own home. Patients reported SMMRT was effective at clarifying issues related to medication directions or dosages and that SMMRT helped remove medications erroneously listed as active in the patient's electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS: Patients viewed SMMRT utilization as a positive experience and endorsed future use of the tool. Veterans reported SMMRT is an effective tool to aid patients with medication reconciliation. Adoption of SMMRT into regular clinical practice could reduce medication discrepancies while increasing accessibility for patients to help manage their medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02482025; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02482025.

Mental health clinician perspectives regarding factors impacting implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies in Veterans Health Administration community-based outpatient clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Uptake of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies (EBPs) by mental health (MH) clinicians, especially in community settings, remains highly variable. This formative pilot study aimed to understand the attitudes and practices of Veterans Health Administration community-based MH clinicians regarding EBPs and to identify multi-level factors that enable and hinder EBP implementation in this unique context. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with MH clinicians (N = 40) working in community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in metro/urban (n = 20) and non-metro/rural (n = 20) locations. Interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and were analyzed using rapid content analysis. Results were organized by system-, clinician-, patient-, and innovation-levels. RESULTS: EBPs were consistently perceived as important to delivering quality MH care, with most clinicians having received training in at least one VHA EBP. However, limited EBP training and consultation opportunities, inadequate autonomy to schedule EBP sessions, high and complex caseloads, and feelings of isolation at CBOCs decreased EPB use. Social workers perceived disparities in EBP training access relative to psychologists. Some barriers were more salient in non-metro/rural settings (e.g., patient-level privacy concerns). CONCLUSIONS: Increased EBP training opportunities- particularly for social workers-, greater flexibility over schedules and caseloads, and more mechanisms for consultation and professional development may increase EBP uptake in community-based clinics.

Intimate Partner Violence Screening for Women in the Veterans Health Administration: Temporal Trends from the Early Years of Implementation 2014-2020.

Thousands of women Veterans experience intimate partner violence (IPV) each year. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has encouraged IPV screening in Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) since 2014. Through retrospective analysis of VHA administrative data from fiscal year (FY) 2014 into FY2020, we examined IPV screening implementation outcomes of reach and adoption, as well as screen-positive rates using descriptive and multivariate linear regression analyses. We examined reach and screen-positive rates overall and as a function of childbearing age (18-44 vs. 45+ years). In FY2014 only one VAMC was screening women for IPV; by FY2020, over half of VAMCs had adopted IPV screening. This rollout of IPV screening was associated with a large increase in the number of women primary care patients screened (from fewer than 500 in FY2014, to nearly 35,000 in early FY2020). Overall, among women screened, 6.7% screened positive for IPV; this rate was higher among women of childbearing age (8.1% vs. 5.6%). Despite the spread of IPV screening practices during the early years of implementation in VHA, additional work is needed. This study is the first comprehensive analysis of implementation outcomes associated with VHA's IPV screening efforts, and lays the groundwork for ongoing evaluation and quality improvement.

Getting Routine Intimate Partner Violence Screening Right: Implementation Strategies Used in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the clinical effectiveness of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening programs, but less is known about implementing and sustaining them. This qualitative study identified implementation strategies used to integrate IPV screening programs within Veterans Health Administration (VHA) women's health primary care. METHODS: Thirty-two administrators and clinician key informants from 11 VHA facilities participated in semistructured interviews. Implementation strategies were identified using established definitions from implementation science literature, through multistep content analysis, involving site comparisons by implementation status. RESULTS: We identified 8 implementation strategies. Three were present across all sites: (1) conduct ongoing IPV trainings, (2) conduct educational meetings and outreach visits, and (3) develop and distribute educational materials. Five strategies were unique to early adopting sites: (4) identify and prepare champions, (5) change record systems to remind clinicians, (6) create a learning collaborative through advisory boards or workgroups, (7) audit and provide feedback with relay of clinical data to providers, and (8) access new funding. DISCUSSION: Strategies align with and extend literature addressing barriers to screening. Evidence shows that effective IPV screening implementation in primary care requires a bundle of well-defined, carefully selected strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies used collectively can enable integration of IPV screening programs in primary care.

Screening for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: An implementation-oriented systematic review.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. Screening for IPV within healthcare settings can identify women who experience IPV and inform counseling, referrals, and interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring externally funded study staff and resources. This systematic review therefore investigated the utility of IPV screening administered by frontline clinical personnel. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review focusing on studies of IPV screening programs for women delivered by frontline healthcare staff. We based our data synthesis on two widely used implementation models (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [RE-AIM] and Proctor's dimensions of implementation effectiveness). Results: We extracted data from 59 qualifying studies. Based on data extraction guided by the RE-AIM framework, the median reach of the IPV screening programs was high (80%), but Emergency Department (ED) settings were found to have a much lower reach (47%). The median screen positive rate was 11%, which is comparable to the screen-positive rate found in studies using externally funded research staff. Among those screening positive, a median of 32% received a referral to follow-up services. Based on data extraction guided by Proctor's dimension of appropriateness, a lack of available referral services frustrated some efforts to implement IPV screening. Among studies reporting data on maintenance or sustainability of IPV screening programs, only half concluded that IPV screening rates held steady during the maintenance phase. Other domains of the RE-AIM and Proctor frameworks (e.g., implementation fidelity and costs) were reported less frequently. Conclusions: IPV is a population health issue, and successfully implementing IPV screening programs may be part of the solution. Our review emphasizes the importance of ongoing provider trainings, readily available referral sources, and consistent institutional support in maintaining appropriate IPV screening programs. Plain language abstract: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. IPV screening and response can identify women who experience IPV and can inform interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many of the screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring administration by externally funded study staff. This systematic review of IPV screening programs for women is particularly novel, as previous reviews have not focused on clinical implementation. It provides a better understanding of successful ways of implementing IPV screening and response practices with frontline clinical personnel in the context of routine care. Successfully implementing IPV screening programs may help mitigate the harms resulting from IPV against women. Findings from this review can inform future efforts to improve implementation of IPV screening programs in clinical settings to ensure that the victims of IPV have access to appropriate counseling, resources, and referrals.