28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adaptation of a quality improvement approach to implement eScreening in VHA healthcare settings: innovative use of the Lean Six Sigma Rapid Process Improvement Workshop

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a comprehensive mobile screening technology (eScreening) that provides customized and automated self-report health screening via mobile tablet for veterans seen in VHA settings. There is agreement about the value of health technology, but limited knowledge of how best to broadly implement and scale up health technologies. Quality improvement (QI) methods may offer solutions to overcome barriers related to broad scale implementation of technology in health systems. We aimed to develop a process guide for eScreening implementation in VHA clinics to automate self-report screening of mental health symptoms and psychosocial challenges.

          Methods

          This was a two-phase, mixed methods implementation project building on an adapted quality improvement method. In phase one, we adapted and conducted an RPIW to develop a generalizable process guide for eScreening implementation (eScreening Playbook). In phase two, we integrated the eScreening Playbook and RPIW with additional strategies of training and facilitation to create a multicomponent implementation strategy (MCIS) for eScreening. We then piloted the MCIS in two VHA sites. Quantitative eScreening pre-implementation survey data and qualitative implementation process “mini interviews” were collected from individuals at each of the two sites who participated in the implementation process. Survey data were characterized using descriptive statistics, and interview data were independently coded using a rapid qualitative analytic approach.

          Results

          Pilot data showed overall satisfaction and usefulness of our MCIS approach and identified some challenges, solutions, and potential adaptations across sites. Both sites used the components of the MCIS, but site 2 elected not to include the RPIW. Survey data revealed positive responses related to eScreening from staff at both sites. Interview data exposed implementation challenges related to the technology, support, and education at both sites. Workflow and staffing resource challenges were only reported by site 2.

          Conclusions

          Our use of RPIW and other QI methods to both develop a playbook and an implementation strategy for eScreening has created a testable implementation process to employ automated, patient-facing assessment. The efficient collection and communication of patient information have the potential to greatly improve access to and quality of healthcare.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00132-x.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project

          Background Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. Methods Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call. Results Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. Conclusions This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy’s importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites’ endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update)

            Background There is a significant potential for e-health to deliver cost-effective, quality health care, and spending on e-health systems by governments and healthcare systems is increasing worldwide. However, there remains a tension between the use of e-health in this way and implementation. Furthermore, the large body of reviews in the e-health implementation field, often based on one particular technology, setting or health condition make it difficult to access a comprehensive and comprehensible summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This review provides an update and re-analysis of a systematic review of the e-health implementation literature culminating in a set of accessible and usable recommendations for anyone involved or interested in the implementation of e-health. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2009 and 2014. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews of the implementation of e-health. Data from included studies were synthesised using the principles of meta-ethnography, and categorisation of the data was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results Forty-four reviews mainly from North America and Europe were included. A range of e-health technologies including electronic medical records and clinical decision support systems were represented. Healthcare settings included primary care, secondary care and home care. Factors important for implementation were identified at the levels of the following: the individual e-health technology, the outer setting, the inner setting and the individual health professionals as well as the process of implementation. Conclusion This systematic review of reviews provides a synthesis of the literature that both acknowledges the multi-level complexity of e-health implementation and provides an accessible and useful guide for those planning implementation. New interpretations of a large amount of data across e-health systems and healthcare settings have been generated and synthesised into a set of useable recommendations for practice. This review provides a further empirical test of the CFIR and identifies areas where additional research is necessary. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42015017661 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bringing PROMIS to practice: brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care.

              Supportive oncology practice can be enhanced by the integration of a brief and validated electronic patient-reported outcome assessment into the electronic health record (EHR) and clinical workflow.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                james.pittman@va.gov
                Journal
                Implement Sci Commun
                Implement Sci Commun
                Implementation Science Communications
                BioMed Central (London )
                2662-2211
                7 April 2021
                7 April 2021
                2021
                : 2
                : 37
                Affiliations
                [1 ]VA Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health, 3350 La Jolla Village Dr., San Diego, CA USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.266100.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2107 4242, Department of Psychiatry, , University of California San Diego, ; 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.410371.0, ISNI 0000 0004 0419 2708, VA San Diego Healthcare System, ; 3350 La Jolla Village Dr., San Diego, CA USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.266100.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2107 4242, UC San Diego Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, , University of California San Diego, ; 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.266100.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2107 4242, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, , University of California San Diego, ; 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA USA
                [6 ]VA Roseburg Health Care System, 913 NW Garden Valley Blvd, Roseburg, OR USA
                Article
                132
                10.1186/s43058-021-00132-x
                8028199
                33827705
                8f2ccead-4e01-454a-a35b-c2a651d40fc2
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 3 September 2020
                : 4 March 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: National VA Care Management and Social Work Program Office, VHA Diffusion Council, and the VA Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health (CESAMH).
                Award ID: NA
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                electronic screening,implementation,rpiw,quality improvement,escreening

                Comments

                Comment on this article