Implementing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy: Stakeholder-Identified Barriers and Facilitators.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Josephine Harrington, Monica Leyva, Vishal N Rao, Megan Oakes, Nkiru Osude, Hayden B Bosworth, Neha J Pagidipati
{"title":"Implementing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy: Stakeholder-Identified Barriers and Facilitators.","authors":"Josephine Harrington, Monica Leyva, Vishal N Rao, Megan Oakes, Nkiru Osude, Hayden B Bosworth, Neha J Pagidipati","doi":"10.1016/j.ahj.2024.11.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite strong evidence and Class I recommendations to support the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), use of these medications remain suboptimal. There is a great need to understand 1) what barriers to implementation of these therapies exist and 2) effective ways to support implementation of these therapies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework, we conducted a broad array of interviews with stakeholders in the care of patients with HFrEF across 26 health systems to determine the barriers to GDMT implementation that health systems face, and to identify any factors that facilitated GDMT implementation and titration. We conducted interviews across a variety of health system phenotypes, including academic, private, fee-for-service, and bundled payment health systems to understand whether barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation existed across system types.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Barriers to GDMT implementation appeared to be consistent across phenotypes and included a lack of time, difficulty in maintaining GDMT across the inpatient to outpatient transition and, among non-HF specialists, a lack of knowledge of guidelines. However, differences emerged when stakeholders described whether tools (facilitators) were available to overcome these barriers to help facilitate GDMT implementation, particularly when comparing institutions with fee-for-service vs bundled payment models. Health systems using bundled payment models were more likely than fee-for-service systems to report that they had support staff such as care managers and pharmacist technicians to improve GDMT use, institutional support for improving GDMT implementation, and champions for GDMT. In contrast, systems using a fee-for-service model rarely reported that these tools were available.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this analysis of stakeholder-reported barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation and titration, we find health systems face similar barriers to GDMT implementation. However, we note that systems using bundled payment models are more likely to report the availability of tools to help overcome these barriers. Future work is needed to understand whether similar facilitators would be effective in fee-for-service systems, or whether alternative facilitators might be more appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":7868,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2024.11.011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite strong evidence and Class I recommendations to support the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), use of these medications remain suboptimal. There is a great need to understand 1) what barriers to implementation of these therapies exist and 2) effective ways to support implementation of these therapies.

Methods: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework, we conducted a broad array of interviews with stakeholders in the care of patients with HFrEF across 26 health systems to determine the barriers to GDMT implementation that health systems face, and to identify any factors that facilitated GDMT implementation and titration. We conducted interviews across a variety of health system phenotypes, including academic, private, fee-for-service, and bundled payment health systems to understand whether barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation existed across system types.

Results: Barriers to GDMT implementation appeared to be consistent across phenotypes and included a lack of time, difficulty in maintaining GDMT across the inpatient to outpatient transition and, among non-HF specialists, a lack of knowledge of guidelines. However, differences emerged when stakeholders described whether tools (facilitators) were available to overcome these barriers to help facilitate GDMT implementation, particularly when comparing institutions with fee-for-service vs bundled payment models. Health systems using bundled payment models were more likely than fee-for-service systems to report that they had support staff such as care managers and pharmacist technicians to improve GDMT use, institutional support for improving GDMT implementation, and champions for GDMT. In contrast, systems using a fee-for-service model rarely reported that these tools were available.

Conclusion: In this analysis of stakeholder-reported barriers and facilitators to GDMT implementation and titration, we find health systems face similar barriers to GDMT implementation. However, we note that systems using bundled payment models are more likely to report the availability of tools to help overcome these barriers. Future work is needed to understand whether similar facilitators would be effective in fee-for-service systems, or whether alternative facilitators might be more appropriate.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American heart journal
American heart journal 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.10%
发文量
214
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The American Heart Journal will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the broad discipline of cardiovascular disease. Our goal is to provide the reader primary investigation, scholarly review, and opinion concerning the practice of cardiovascular medicine. We especially encourage submission of 3 types of reports that are not frequently seen in cardiovascular journals: negative clinical studies, reports on study designs, and studies involving the organization of medical care. The Journal does not accept individual case reports or original articles involving bench laboratory or animal research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信