BACKGROUND: Delivering prescription digital therapeutics (ie, evidence-based interventions designed to treat, manage, or prevent disorders via websites or smartphone apps) in primary care could increase patient access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatments. However, the optimal approach to implementing prescription digital therapeutics in primary care remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study is a precursor to a larger trial designed to test whether implementation strategies (practice facilitation [PF] and health coaching [HC]) improve the delivery of prescription digital therapeutics for SUDs in primary care. This mixed methods study describes outcomes among patients in the 2 pilot clinics and presents qualitative findings on implementation.
METHODS: From February 10 to August 6, 2021, a total of 3 mental health specialists embedded in 2 primary care practices of the same integrated health system were tasked with offering app-based prescription digital therapeutics to patients with SUD. In the first half of the pilot, implementation activities included training and supportive tools. PF (at 1 clinic) and HC (at 2 clinics) were added in the second half. All study analyses relied on secondary data, including electronic health records and digital therapeutic vendor data. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients reached by the prescription digital therapeutics and fidelity related to ideal use. We used qualitative methods to assess the adherence to planned activities and the barriers and facilitators to implementing prescription digital therapeutics.
RESULTS: Of all 18 patients prescribed the apps, 10 (56%) downloaded the app and activated their prescription, and 8 (44%) completed at least 1 module of content. Patients who activated the app completed 1 module per week on average. Ideal use (fidelity) was defined as completing 4 modules per week and having a monthly SUD-related visit; 1 (6%) patient met these criteria for 10 weeks (of the 12-week prescription period). A total of 5 (28%) patients had prescriptions while HC was available, 2 (11%) were successfully contacted, and both declined coaching. Clinicians reported competing clinical priorities, technical challenges, and logistically complex workflows in part because the apps required a prescription. Some pilot activities were impacted by staff turnover that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. The facilitators to implementation were high engagement and the perception that the apps could meet patient needs.
CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study encountered the barriers to implementing prescription digital therapeutics in a real-world primary care setting, especially staffing shortages, turnover, and competing priorities for clinic teams. The larger randomized trial will clarify the extent to which PF and HC improve the implementation of digital therapeutics.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04907045; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04907045.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death and the second most common cancer diagnosis among the Hispanic population in the United States. However, CRC screening prevalence remains lower among Hispanic adults than among non-Hispanic white adults. To reduce CRC screening disparities, efforts to implement CRC screening evidence-based interventions in primary care organizations (PCOs) must consider their potential effect on existing screening disparities. More research is needed to understand how to leverage existing implementation science methodologies to improve health disparities. The Coaching to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Equity (CoachIQ) pilot study explores whether integrating two implementation science tools, Causal Pathway Diagrams and practice facilitation, is a feasible and effective way to address CRC screening disparities among Hispanic patients.
METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design to evaluate feasibility and assess initial signals of effectiveness of the CoachIQ approach. Three PCOs received coaching from CoachIQ practice facilitators over a 12-month period. Three non-equivalent comparison group PCOs received coaching during the same period as participants in a state quality improvement program. We conducted descriptive analyses of screening rates and coaching activities.
RESULTS: The CoachIQ practice facilitators discussed equity, facilitated prioritization of QI activities, and reviewed CRC screening disparities during a higher proportion of coaching encounters than the comparison group practice facilitator. While the mean overall CRC screening rate in the comparison PCOs increased from 34 to 41%, the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients did not increase from 30%. In contrast, the mean overall CRC screening rate at the CoachIQ PCOs increased from 41 to 44%, and the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients increased from 35 to 39%.
CONCLUSIONS: The CoachIQ program merges two implementation science methodologies, practice facilitation and causal pathway diagrams, to help PCOs focus quality improvement efforts on improving CRC screening while also reducing screening disparities. Results from this pilot study demonstrate key differences between CoachIQ facilitation and standard facilitation, and point to the potential of the CoachIQ approach to decrease disparities in CRC screening.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the United States and Tennessee ranks among the highest in CVD events. While patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) evidence-based approaches that reach beyond the traditional doctor-patient visit hold promise to improve CVD care and prevent serious complications, most primary care providers lack time, knowledge, and infrastructure to implement these proven approaches. Statewide primary care quality improvement (QI) collaboratives hold potential to help address primary care needs, however, little is known regarding their effectiveness in improving uptake of PCOR evidence-based population health approaches and improving CVD outcomes. This study describes the design and implementation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of participation in a statewide quality improvement cooperative (The Tennessee Heart Health Network [TN-HHN]) on cardiovascular outcomes.
METHODS: The TN-HHN Effectiveness Study randomized 77 practices to 4 waves (i.e., clusters), with each wave beginning three months after the start of the prior wave and lasting for 18 months. All practice clusters received one of three Network interventions, and outcomes are measured for each three months both in the control phase and the intervention phase. Primary outcomes include Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures for aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol control, and smoking cessation (ABCS).
CONCLUSIONS: This trial, upon its conclusion, will allow us to assess the effect of participation in a statewide quality improvement cooperative on cardiovascular outcomes as well as key contributors to successful practice transformation.

BACKGROUND: Research demonstrates the importance of documenting adaptations to implementation strategies that support integration of evidence-based interventions into practice. While studies have utilized the FRAME-IS [Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications for Implementation Strategies] to collect structured adaptation data, they are limited by a focus on discrete implementation strategies (e.g., training), which do not reflect the complexity of multifaceted strategies like practice facilitation. In this paper, we apply the FRAME-IS to our trial evaluating the effectiveness of PF on implementation fidelity of an evidence-based technology-facilitated team care model for improved hypertension control within a federally qualified health center (FQHC).
METHODS: Three data sources are used to document adaptations: (1) implementation committee meeting minutes, (2) narrative reports completed by practice facilitators, and (3) structured notes captured on root cause analysis and Plan-Do-Study-Act worksheets. Text was extracted from the data sources according to the FRAME-IS modules and inputted into a master matrix for content analysis by two authors; a third author conducted member checking and code validation.
RESULTS: We modified the FRAME-IS to include part 2 of module 2 (what is modified) to add greater detail of the modified strategy, and a numbering system to track adaptations across the modules. This resulted in identification of 27 adaptations, of which 88.9% focused on supporting practices in identifying eligible patients and referring them to the intervention. About half (52.9%) of the adaptations were made to modify the context of the PF strategy to include a group-based format, add community health workers to the strategy, and to shift the implementation target to nurses. The adaptations were often widespread (83.9%), affecting all practices within the FQHC. While most adaptations were reactive (84.6%), they resulted from a systematic process of reviewing data captured by multiple sources. All adaptations included the FQHC in the decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS: With modifications, we demonstrate the ability to document our adaptation data across the FRAME-IS modules, attesting to its applicability and value for a range of implementation strategies. Based on our experiences, we recommend refinement of tracking systems to support more nimble and practical documentation of iterative, ongoing, and multifaceted adaptations.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03713515, Registration date: October 19, 2018.

UNASSIGNED: Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with \"facilitation\" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection.
UNASSIGNED: The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software.
UNASSIGNED: We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of hypertension care delivery in reducing morbidity and mortality, a majority of hypertension cases remain uncontrolled. There is an urgent need to elucidate and address multilevel facilitators and barriers clinical staff face in delivering evidence-based hypertension care, patients face in accessing it, and clinical systems face in sustaining it. Through a rigorous pre-implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators and barriers bearing the potential to affect the planned implementation of a multilevel technology-facilitated hypertension management trial across six primary care sites in a large federally qualified health center (FQHC) in New York City.
METHODS: During a dedicated pre-implementation period (3-9 months/site, 2021-2022), a capacity assessment was conducted by trained practice facilitators, including (1) online anonymous surveys (n = 124; 70.5% of eligible), (2) hypertension training analytics (n = 69; 94.5% of assigned), and (3) audio-recorded semi-structured interviews (n = 67; 48.6% of eligible) with FQHC leadership and staff. Surveys measured staff sociodemographic characteristics, adaptive reserve, evidence-based practice attitudes, and implementation leadership scores via validated scales. Training analytics, derived from end-of-course quizzes, included mean score and number attempts needed to pass. Interviews assessed staff-reported facilitators and barriers to current hypertension care delivery and uptake; following audio transcription, trained qualitative researchers employed a deductive coding approach, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
RESULTS: Most survey respondents reported moderate adaptive reserve (mean = 0.7, range = 0-1), evidence-based practice attitudes (mean = 2.7, range = 0-4), and implementation leadership (mean = 2.5, range = 0-4). Most staff passed training courses on first attempt and demonstrated high scores (means > 80%). Findings from interviews identified potential facilitators and barriers to implementation; specifically, staff reported that complex barriers to hypertension care, control, and clinical communication exist; there is a recognized need to improve hypertension care; in-clinic challenges with digital tool access imposes workflow delays; and despite high patient loads, staff are motivated to provide high-quality cares.
CONCLUSIONS: This study serves as one of the first to apply the CFIR to a rigorous pre-implementation evaluation within the understudied context of a FQHC and can serve as a model for similar trials seeking to identify and address contextual factors known to impact implementation success.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03713515 , date of registration: October 19, 2018.

Hospitalizations involving opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce mortality and acute care utilization. Hospitalization is a reachable moment for initiating MOUD and arranging for ongoing MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. Despite existing quality metrics for MOUD initiation and engagement, few hospitals provide hospital based opioid treatment (HBOT). This protocol describes a cluster-randomized hybrid type-2 implementation study comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation support strategies to help community hospitals implement HBOT.
Four state implementation hubs with expertise in initiating HBOT programs will provide implementation support to 24 community hospitals (6 hospitals/hub) interested in starting HBOT. Community hospitals will be randomized to 24-months of either a low-intensity intervention (distribution of an HBOT best-practice manual, a lecture series based on the manual, referral to publicly available resources, and on-demand technical assistance) or a high-intensity intervention (the low-intensity intervention plus funding for a hospital HBOT champion and regular practice facilitation sessions with an expert hub). The primary efficacy outcome, adapted from the National Committee on Quality Assurance, is the proportion of patients engaged in MOUD 34-days following hospital discharge. Secondary and exploratory outcomes include acute care utilization, non-fatal overdose, death, MOUD engagement at various time points, hospital length of stay, and discharges against medical advice. Primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes will be derived from state Medicaid data. Implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators are assessed via longitudinal surveys, qualitative interviews, practice facilitation contact logs, and HBOT sustainability metrics. We hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving care at hospitals randomized to the high-intensity arm will have greater MOUD engagement following hospital discharge.
Initiation of MOUD during hospitalization improves MOUD engagement post hospitalization. Few studies, however, have tested different implementation strategies on HBOT uptake, outcome, and sustainability and only one to date has tested implementation of a specific type of HBOT (addiction consultation services). This cluster-randomized study comparing different intensities of HBOT implementation support will inform hospitals and policymakers in identifying effective strategies for promoting HBOT dissemination and adoption in community hospitals.
NCT04921787.

Building on previous efforts to transform primary care, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in 2015. This 3-year initiative provided external quality improvement support to small and medium-size primary care practices to implement evidence-based cardiovascular care. Despite challenges, results from an independent national evaluation demonstrated that the EvidenceNOW model successfully boosted the capacity of primary care practices to improve quality of care, while helping to advance heart health. Reflecting on AHRQ\'s own learnings as the funder of this work, 3 key lessons emerged: (1) there will always be surprises that will require flexibility and real-time adaptation; (2) primary care transformation is about more than technology; and (3) it takes time and experience to improve care delivery and health outcomes. EvidenceNOW taught us that lasting practice transformation efforts need to be responsive to anticipated and unanticipated changes, relationship-oriented, and not tied to a specific disease or initiative. We believe these lessons argue for a national primary care extension service that provides ongoing support for practice transformation.

BACKGROUND: Age-friendly care, addressing what matters most, medications, mentation, and mobility, is a successful model for improving older adult care. We describe the initial outcomes of age-friendly care implementation in five primary care clinics in an academic health system.
METHODS: In partnership with a regional quality improvement (QI) organization, we used practice facilitation to implement age-friendly care from July 2020 to June 2023. Clinic workflows and electronic health record (EHR) templates were modified to capture six QI measures for patients ≥65 years: Documenting what matters most to patients Advance care planning (ACP) Annual cognitive screening Caregiver referral to dementia community resources Fall-risk screening Co-prescription of opioid and sedative-hypnotic drugs Providers were alerted if patients had positive screens and given support tools for clinical decision-making. QI measures from January-June 2023 were compared to the year prior to implementation. Providers and staff were interviewed about implementation barriers and facilitators.
RESULTS: All six measures improved in Geriatrics and and other clinics showed improvement in ACP and cognitive screening. All clinics had high fall-risk screening rates (≥85%). The least improved measure was co-prescription of opioids and sedative-hypnotics with co-prescription rates ranging from 7% to 39%. Implementation hinged on leadership prioritization, practice facilitator guidance, clinical team buy-in, EHR functionality, and clinical performance review. Three clinics received Age-Friendly Health System recognition.
CONCLUSIONS: A QI approach using practice facilitation and EHR templates improved some but not all age-friendly care measures. Future interventions will focus on training in high-risk medication tapering and elicitation of health goals.

UNASSIGNED: Research demonstrates the importance of documenting adaptations to implementation strategies that support integration of evidence-based interventions into practice. While studies have utilized the FRAME-IS [Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications for Implementation Strategies] to collect structured adaptation data, they are limited by a focus on discrete implementation strategies (e.g., training), which do not reflect the complexity of multifaceted strategies like practice facilitation (PF). In this paper, we apply the FRAME-IS to our trial evaluating the effectiveness of PF on implementation fidelity of an evidence-based technology-facilitated team care model for improved hypertension control within a federally qualified health center (FQHC).
UNASSIGNED: Three data sources are used to document adaptations: (1) implementation committee meeting minutes, (2) narrative reports completed by practice facilitators, and (3) structured notes captured on root cause analysis and Plan-Do-Study-Act worksheets. Text was extracted from the data sources according to the FRAME-IS modules and inputted into a master matrix for content analysis by two authors; a third author conducted member checking and code validation.
UNASSIGNED: We modified the FRAME-IS to include part 2 of module 2 (what is modified) to add greater detail of the modified strategy, and a numbering system to track adaptations across the modules. This resulted in identification of 27 adaptations, of which 88.9% focused on supporting practices in identifying eligible patients and referring them to the intervention. About half (52.9%) of the adaptations were made to modify the context of the PF strategy to include a group-based format, add community health workers to the strategy, and to shift the implementation target to nurses. The adaptations were often widespread (83.9%), affecting all practices within the FQHC. While most adaptations were reactive (84.6%), they resulted from a systematic process of reviewing data captured by multiple sources. All adaptations included the FQHC in the decision-making process.
UNASSIGNED: With modifications, we demonstrate the ability to document our adaptation data across the FRAME-IS modules, attesting to its applicability and value for a range of implementation strategies. Based on our experiences, we recommend refinement of tracking systems to support more nimble and practical documentation of iterative, ongoing, and multifaceted adaptations.
UNASSIGNED: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03713515, Registration date: October 19, 2018.