130. Effects of COVID-19 on a Complex Behavioral Intervention to Improve the Diagnosis and Management of UTI in Nursing Homes

Background Half of all urinary tract infections (UTI) are probably unnecessary. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in which a toolkit to enhance the diagnosis and treatment of UTIs was introduced in study NHs via usual implementation versus an enhanced implementation approach based on external facilitation and peer comparison reporting. Methods Thirty Wisconsin NHs were randomized to each treatment arm in a 1.5:1 ratio. NHs used an online portal to report urine culture and antibiotic treatment data over a 6-month pre-intervention period (Jan-June 2019), a pre-COVID 8-month post intervention period (July 2019-Feb 2020) and an 8-month post-COVID intervention period (Mar-Oct 2020). Study outcomes included urine culture (UC), antibiotic start (AS), and antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) rates per 1,000 resident days. A generalized estimating equation model for panel data was used to assess differences in study outcomes between treatment arms before and after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. STATA 16.1 was used for all analyses. Results A total of 802 UCs (457 pre-COVID, 345 post-COVID), 724 AS (401 pre-COVID, 323 post-COVID), and 6,454 DOT (3553 pre-COVID and 2901 post-COVID) were reported over the 16-month intervention period. No significant differences in the study outcomes were observed during the pre-COVID intervention period, however, UC rates in NHs assigned to the usual care arm of the study increased while those in the enhanced arm declined following onset of COVID-19 (Figure 1). AS and DOT rates followed a similar pattern although the differences between the study arms were not statistically significant. Figure 1. Post Implementation Periods Conclusion Our findings suggest that NHs assigned to usual implementation regressed in their diagnosis and treatment of UTIs during the COVID-19 pandemic while those receiving external facilitation and peer comparison reports were more resilient to the effects of COVID-19. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Understanding the Role of External Facilitation to Drive Quality Improvement for Stroke Care in Hospitals

The use of external facilitation within the context of multicomponent quality improvement interventions (mQI) is growing. We aimed to evaluate the influence of external facilitation for improving the quality of acute stroke care. Clinicians from hospitals participating in mQI (Queensland, Australia) as part of the Stroke123 study were supported by external facilitators in a single, on-site workshop to review hospital performance against eight clinical processes of care (PoCs) collected in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) and develop an action plan. Remote support (i.e., telephone/email) after the workshop was provided. As part of a process evaluation for Stroke123, we recorded the number and mode of contacts between clinicians and facilitators; type of support provided; and frequency of self-directed, hospital-level stroke registry data reviews. Analysis: We measured the association between amount/type of external facilitation, (i) development of action plans, and (ii) adherence to PoCs before and after the intervention using AuSCR data from 2010 to 2015. In total, 14/19 hospitals developed an action plan. There was no significant difference in amount or type of external facilitator support provided between hospitals that did, and did not, develop an action plan. There was no relationship between the amount of external facilitation and change in adherence to PoCs. Most (95%) hospitals accessed stroke registry performance data. In the Stroke123 study, the amount or type of external facilitation did not influence action plan development, and the amount of support did not influence the changes achieved in adherence to PoCs. Remote support may not add value for mQI.

Fluctuations in barriers to medication treatment for opioid use disorder prescribing over the course of a one-year external facilitation intervention

Background The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is invested in expanding access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to save lives. Access varies across VHA facilities and, thus, requires implementation strategies to promote system-wide adoption of MOUD. We conducted a 12-month study employing external facilitation that targeted MOUD treatment among low-adopting VHA facilities. In this study, we sought to evaluate the patterns of perceived barriers over 1 year of external implementation facilitation using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Methods We randomly selected eight VHA facilities from the bottom quartile of the proportion of Veterans with an OUD diagnosis receiving MOUD (< 21%). The 1-year external implementation intervention included developmental evaluation to tailor the facilitation, an on-site visit, and monthly facilitation calls. Facilitators recorded detailed notes for each call on a structured template. Qualitative data was analyzed by coding and mapping barriers to the constructs in the i-PARIHS framework (Innovation, Recipients, Context). We identified emerging themes within each construct by month. Results Barriers related to the Innovation, such as provider perception of the need for MOUD in their setting, were minimal throughout the 12-month study. Barriers related to Recipients were predominant and fluctuated over time. Recipient barriers were common during the initial months when providers did not have the training and waivers necessary to prescribe MOUD. Once additional providers (Recipients) were trained and waivered to prescribe MOUD, Recipient barriers dropped and then resurfaced as the facilities worked to expand MOUD prescribing to other clinics. Context barriers, such as restrictions on which clinics could prescribe MOUD and fragmented communication across clinics regarding the management of patients receiving MOUD, emerged more prominently in the middle of the study. Conclusions VHA facilities participating in 12-month external facilitation interventions experienced fluctuations in barriers to MOUD prescribing with contextual barriers emerging after a facilitated reduction in recipient- level barriers. Adoption of MOUD prescribing in low-adopting VHA facilities requires continual reassessment, monitoring, and readjustment of implementation strategies over time to meet challenges. Although i-PARIHS was useful in categorizing most barriers, the lack of conceptual clarity was a concern for some constructs.

Multi-tiered external facilitation: the role of feedback loops and tailored interventions in supporting change in a stepped-wedge implementation trial

Background Facilitation is a complex, relational implementation strategy that guides change processes. Facilitators engage in multiple activities and tailor efforts to local contexts. How this work is coordinated and shared among multiple, external actors and the contextual factors that prompt and moderate facilitators to tailor activities have not been well-described. Methods We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to improve the quality of transient ischemic attack care. Six sites in the Veterans Health Administration received external facilitation (EF) before and during a 1-year active implementation period. We examined how EF was employed and activated. Data analysis included prospective logs of facilitator correspondence with sites (160 site-directed episodes), stakeholder interviews (a total of 78 interviews, involving 42 unique individuals), and collaborative call debriefs (n=22) spanning implementation stages. Logs were descriptively analyzed across facilitators, sites, time periods, and activity types. Interview transcripts were coded for content related to EF and themes were identified. Debriefs were reviewed to identify instances of and utilization of EF during site critical junctures. Results Multi-tiered EF was supported by two groups (site-facing quality improvement [QI] facilitators and the implementation support team) that were connected by feedback loops. Each site received an average of 24 episodes of site-directed EF; most of the EF was delivered by the QI nurse. For each site, site-directed EF frequently involved networking (45%), preparation and planning (44%), process monitoring (44%), and/or education (36%). EF less commonly involved audit and feedback (20%), brainstorming solutions (16%), and/or stakeholder engagement (5%). However, site-directed EF varied widely across sites and time periods in terms of these facilitation types. Site participants recognized the responsiveness of the QI nurse and valued her problem-solving, feedback, and accountability support. External facilitators used monitoring and dialogue to intervene by facilitating redirection during challenging periods of uncertainty about project direction and feasibility for sites. External facilitators, in collaboration with the implementation support team, successfully used strategies tailored to diverse local contexts, including networking, providing data, and brainstorming solutions. Conclusions Multi-tiered facilitation capitalizing on emergent feedback loops allowed for tailored, site-directed facilitation. Critical juncture cases illustrate the complexity of EF and the need to often try multiple strategies in combination to facilitate implementation progress. Trial registration The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurological Symptoms (PREVENT) is a registered trial (NCT02769338), May 11, 2016—prospectively registered.

Implementation of peer specialist services in VA primary care: a cluster randomized trial on the impact of external facilitation

Background Over 1100 veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs)—those with formal training who support other veterans with similar diagnoses. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from their usual placement in mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PSs in PACTs, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in new settings. Methods This study was a cluster-randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial to test the impact of minimal implementation support vs. facilitated implementation on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT over 2 years. Twenty-five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) were recruited to reassign mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 7, 10, 8) over 6-month blocks were matched and randomized to each study condition. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert worked with site stakeholders through a site visit and regular calls, and provided performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Minimal implementation sites received a webinar and access to the VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions were compared on PS workload data and veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews collected information on perceived usefulness of the PS services. Results In the first year, sites that received facilitation had higher numbers of unique veterans served and a higher number of PS visits, although the groups did not differ after the second year. Also, sites receiving external facilitation started delivering PS services more quickly than minimal support sites. All sites in the external facilitation condition continued in the pilot into the second year, whereas two of the sites in the minimal assistance condition dropped out after the first year. There were no differences between groups on veterans’ outcomes—activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Most veterans were very positive about the help they received as evidenced in the qualitative interviews. Discussion These findings demonstrate that external facilitation can be effective in supporting the implementation of PSs in primary care settings. The lack of significant differences across conditions after the second year highlights the positive outcomes associated with active facilitation, while also raising the important question of whether longer-term success may require some level of ongoing facilitation and implementation support. Trial registration This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600).

Implementation support for contingency management: preferences of opioid treatment program leaders and staff

Background Contingency management (CM), a behavioral intervention that provides incentives for achieving treatment goals, is an evidence-based adjunct to medication to treat opioid use disorder. Unfortunately, many front-line treatment providers do not utilize CM, likely due to contextual barriers that limit effective training and ongoing support for evidence-based practices. This study applied user-informed approaches to adapt a multi-level implementation strategy called the Science to Service Laboratory (SSL) to support CM implementation. Methods Leaders and treatment providers working in community-based opioid treatment programs (OTPs; N = 43) completed qualitative interviews inquiring about their preferences for training and support implementation strategies (didactic training, performance feedback, and external facilitation). Our team coded interviews using a reflexive team approach to identify common a priori and emergent themes. Results Leaders and providers expressed a preference for brief training that included case examples and research data, along with experiential learning strategies. They reported a desire for performance feedback from internal supervisors, patients, and clinical experts. Providers and leaders had mixed feelings about audio-recording sessions but were open to the use of rating sheets to evaluate CM performance. Finally, participants desired both on-call and regularly scheduled external facilitation to support their continued use of CM. Conclusions This study provides an exemplar of a user-informed approach to adapt the SSL implementation support strategies for CM scale-up in community OTPs. Study findings highlight the need for user-informed approaches to training, performance feedback, and facilitation to support sustained CM use in this setting.

Early impacts of a multi-faceted implementation strategy to increase use of medication treatments for opioid use disorder in the Veterans Health Administration

Background Despite the risk of negative sequelae from opioid use disorder (OUD) and clinical guidelines for the use of effective medication treatment for OUD (M-OUD), many Veterans Health Administration (VHA) providers and facilities lag in providing M-OUD. An intensive external facilitation intervention may enhance uptake in low-adopting VHA facilities by engaging stakeholders from multiple clinical settings within a facility (e.g., mental health, primary care, pain specialty clinic, substance use disorder clinics). Our study identified pre-intervention determinants of implementation through qualitative interviews, described strategies employed during the first 6 months of intensive external facilitation, and explored patterns of implementation determinants in relation to early outcomes. Methods Guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, we interviewed stakeholders at low-adopting VHA facilities prior to external facilitation, employed a rapid qualitative analytic process, presented findings during facility visits, and collaboratively created facilitation action plans to achieve goals set by the facilities that would increase M-OUD uptake. The primary outcome was the Substance Use Disorder (SUD)-16, which is a VHA facility-level performance metric consisting of the percent of patients receiving M-OUD among those with an OUD diagnosis. We examined the relationship between pre-implementation factors and 6-month SUD-16 outcomes. Results Across eight VHA facilities, we interviewed 68 participants. Implementation determinants included barriers and facilitators across innovation, context, and recipients constructs of i-PARIHS. Each facility selected goals based on the qualitative results. At 6 months, two facilities achieved most goals and two facilities demonstrated progress. The SUD-16 from baseline to 6 months significantly improved in two facilities (8.4% increase (95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.4–12.4) and 9.9% increase (95% CI 3.6–16.2), respectively). Six-month implementation outcomes showed that the extent to which M-OUD aligns with existing clinical practices and values was a primary factor at all facilities, with six of eight facilities perceiving it as both a barrier and facilitator. External health system barriers were most challenging for facilities with the smallest change in SUD-16. Conclusions Early impacts of a multi-faceted implementation approach demonstrated a strong signal for positively impacting M-OUD prescribing in low-adopting VHA facilities. This signal indicates that external facilitation can influence adoption of M-OUD at the facility level in the early implementation phase. These short-term wins experienced by stakeholders may encourage continued adoption and long-term sustainability M-OUD.

Implementation of Peer Specialist Services in VA Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial on the Impact of External Facilitation

Background. Over 1100 Veterans work in the Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) as Peer Specialists (PSs)—those with formal training who support other Veterans with similar diagnoses. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from their usual placement in mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PS in PACT, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in VHA settings. Methods. This study was a cluster-randomized Hybrid II trial to test the impact of minimal implementation support vs. facilitated implementation on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT over two years. Twenty-five Veteran’s Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) were recruited to reassign a mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n=7, 10, 8) over six-month blocks were matched and randomized to each study condition. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert worked with site stakeholders through a site visit and regular calls, and provided performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Minimal implementation sites received a webinar and access the Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions were compared on PS workload data and Veteran measures of activation, satisfaction and functioning. Qualitative interviews collected information on perceived usefulness of the PS services.Results. In the first year, sites that received facilitation had higher numbers of unique Veterans served and a higher number of PS visits, although the groups did not differ after the second year. Also, sites receiving external facilitation started delivering PS services more quickly than minimal support sites. All sites in the external facilitation condition continued in the pilot into the second year, whereas two of the sites in the minimal assistance condition dropped out after the first year. There were no differences between groups on Veterans’ outcomes—activation, satisfaction and functioning. Most Veterans were very positive about the help they received as evidenced in the qualitative interviews. Discussion. These findings demonstrate that external facilitation can be effective in supporting the implementation of PSs in primary care settings. The lack of significant differences across conditions after the second year highlights the positive outcomes associated with active facilitation, while also raising the important question of whether longer-term success may require some level of ongoing facilitation and implementation support.Trial Registration. This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600).

Multi-tiered External Facilitation: The Role of Feedback Loops and Tailored Interventions in Supporting Change in a Stepped-Wedge Implementation Trial

Background Facilitation is a complex, relational implementation strategy that guides change processes. Facilitators engage in multiple activities and tailor efforts to local contexts. The contextual factors that prompt facilitators to tailor activities have not been well-described. Methods We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to improve the quality of transient ischemic attack care. Six sites in the Veterans Health Administration received external facilitation (EF) before and during a 1-year active implementation period. We examined how EF was employed, perceived, and activated. Data analysis included prospective logs of facilitator correspondence with sites (160 site-directed episodes), stakeholder interviews (n=78), and collaborative call debriefs (n=22). Logs were descriptively analyzed across facilitators, sites, time periods, and activity types. Interview transcripts were coded for content related to EF and themes were identified. Debriefs were reviewed to identify instances of and utilization of EF during site critical junctures. Results Multi-tiered EF was supported by two groups (site-facing quality improvement [QI] facilitators and the implementation support team) that were connected by feedback loops. Each site received an average of 24 episodes of site-directed EF; most of the EF was delivered by the QI nurse. For each site, site-directed EF frequently involved networking (45%), preparation and planning (44%), process monitoring (44%), and/or education (36%). EF less commonly involved audit and feedback (20%), brainstorming solutions (16%), and/or stakeholder engagement (5%). However, site-directed EF varied widely across sites and time periods in terms of these facilitation types. Site participants recognized the responsiveness of the QI nurse, and valued her problem-solving, feedback, and accountability support. External facilitators used monitoring and dialogue to intervene by facilitating redirection during challenging periods of uncertainty about project direction and feasibility for sites. External facilitators, in collaboration with the implementation support team, successfully used strategies tailored to diverse local contexts, including networking, providing data, and brainstorming solutions. Conclusions Multi-tiered facilitation capitalizing on feedback loops allowed for tailored, site-directed facilitation that aligned with the types of supports that local participants valued. Critical juncture cases illustrate the complexity of EF and the need to often try multiple strategies in combination to facilitate implementation progress.