Tracing the potential of networks to improve community cancer care: an in-depth single case study

Background Despite overall declines in cancer mortality in the USA over the past three decades, many patients in community settings fail to receive evidence-based cancer care. Networks that link academic medical centers (AMCs) and community providers may reduce disparities by creating access to specialized expertise and care, but research on network effectiveness is mixed. The objective of this study was to identify factors related to whether and how an exemplar AMC network served to provide advice and referral access in community settings. Methods An embedded in–depth single case study design was employed to study a network in the Midwest USA that connects a leading cancer specialty AMC with community practices. The embedded case units were a subset of 20 patients with young-onset colorectal cancer or risk-related conditions and the providers involved in their care. The electronic health record (EHR) was reviewed from January 1, 1990, to February 28, 2018. Social network analysis identified care, advice, and referral relationships. Within-case process tracing provided detailed accounts of whether and how the network provided access to expert, evidence-based care or advice in order to identify factors related to network effectiveness. Results The network created access to evidence-based advice or care in some but not all case units, and there was variability in whether and how community providers engaged the network, including the path for referrals to the AMC and the way in which advice about an evidence-based approach to care was communicated from AMC specialists to community providers. Factors related to instances when the network functioned as intended included opportunities for both rich and lean communication between community providers and specialists, coordinated referrals, and efficient and adequately utilized documentation systems. Conclusions Network existence alone is insufficient to open up access to evidence-based expertise or care for patients in community settings. In-depth understanding of how this network operated provides insight into factors that support or inhibit the potential of networks to minimize disparities in access to evidence-based community cancer care, including both personal and organizational factors.

Estimating the Cost of Surgical Care Purchased in the Community by the Veterans Health Administration

Background. Veterans’ access to Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased community care expanded due to large increases in funding provided in the 2014 Veterans Choice Act. Objectives. To compare costs between VA-delivered care and VA payments for purchased care for two commonly performed surgeries: total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and cataract surgeries. Research Design. Descriptive statistics and regressions examining costs in VA-delivered and VA-purchased care (fiscal year [FY] 2018 [October 2017 to September 2018]). Subjects. A total of 13,718 TKAs, of which 6,293 (46%) were performed in VA. A total of 91,659 cataract surgeries, of which 65,799 (72%) were performed in VA. Measures. Costs of VA-delivered care based on activity-based cost estimates; costs of VA-purchased care based on approved and paid claims. Results. Ninety-eight percent of VA-delivered TKAs occurred in inpatient hospitals, with an average cost of $28,969 (SD $10,778). The majority (86%) of VA-purchased TKAs were also performed at inpatient hospitals, with an average payment of $13,339 (SD $23,698). VA-delivered cataract surgeries were performed at hospitals as outpatient procedures, with an average cost of $4,301 (SD $2,835). VA-purchased cataract surgeries performed at hospitals averaged $1,585 (SD $629); those performed at ambulatory surgical centers cost an average of $1,346 (SD $463). We also found significantly higher Nosos risk scores for patients who used VA-delivered versus VA-purchased care. Conclusions. Costs of VA-delivered care were higher than payments for VA-purchased care, but this partly reflects legislative caps limiting VA payments to community providers to Medicare amounts. Higher patient risk scores in the VA could indicate that community providers are reluctant to accept high-risk patients because of Medicare reimbursements, or that VA providers prefer to keep the more complex patients in VA.

Community-based implementation strategy use and satisfaction: A mixed-methods approach to using the ERIC compilation for organizations serving children on the autism spectrum

Background Despite efforts to use standardized taxonomy and research reporting, documenting implementation strategies utilized in community settings remains challenging. This case study demonstrates a practical approach to gather use of and satisfaction with implementation strategies utilized within community-based sites to understand community providers’ perspectives of implementing an early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for children on the autism spectrum across different settings. Methods Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, survey and interview data were collected from directors/supervisors and direct providers ( n = 26) across three sites (one university and two community-based replication sites). The Implementation Strategies and Satisfaction Survey (ISSS) was administered to identify staff-reported implementation strategy use and satisfaction. Informed by quantitative results, follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subsample ( n = 13) to further understand staff experiences with endorsed implementation strategies and elicit recommendations for future efforts. Results Survey results were used to demonstrate frequencies of implementation strategies endorsed by site and role. Overall, staff felt satisfied with implementation strategies used within their agencies. Content analysis of qualitative data revealed three salient themes related to implementation strategy use—context, communication, and successes and challenges—providing in-depth detail on how strategies were utilized, and strategy effectiveness based on community providers’ experiences. Recommendations were also elicited to improve strategy use within “broader” community settings. Conclusions The project demonstrated a practical approach to identifying and evaluating implementation strategies used within sites delivering autism services. Reporting implementation strategies using the ISSS can provide insight into community providers’ perspectives and satisfaction with agency implementation strategy use that can generate more relevant and responsive strategies to address barriers in community settings. Plain language abstract Examining community providers’ preferences and experiences with implementation strategies used to facilitate evidence-based practice uptake can broaden our understanding of what, how, and why implementation strategies work in community-based settings ( Chaudoir et al., 2013 ; Leeman et al., 2017 ; Proctor et al., 2013 ). Such efforts have great potential to tailor implementation strategies to address barriers/facilitators typically found in community-based settings. This case study demonstrates a practical approach using mixed methodology to: (a) gather self-reported use of and satisfaction with implementation strategies to understand community providers’ perspectives of implementation strategy success. Using a new survey, the Implementation Strategies and Satisfaction Survey (ISSS) conjoined with interviews, the study demonstrated a practical approach using standardized language to report strategies used in one university-based site and two community-based replication sites that deliver an early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for children on the autism spectrum. This paper contributes to one of the five priorities to enhance public health impact—improve tracking and reporting of implementation strategies utilized when translating research into practice ( Dingfelder & Mandell, 2011 ; Powell et al., 2019 ; Stahmer et al., 2019 ). This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding context (e.g., community organizations providing services to children on the autism spectrum) to develop strategies that work better for EIBI implementation and scale-up. Understanding community provider's preferences and experiences with implementation strategies can support use of implementation strategies that better fit usual care contexts, with the ultimate goal of improving implementation practice in community-based settings.