跟踪退伍军人事务阿片类药物风险管理工具的随机推出:使用实施研究综合框架(CFIR)的多方法实施评估。

Sharon A McCarthy, Matthew Chinman, Shari S Rogal, Gloria Klima, Leslie R M Hausmann, Maria K Mor, Mala Shah, Jennifer A Hale, Hongwei Zhang, Adam J Gordon, Walid F Gellad
{"title":"跟踪退伍军人事务阿片类药物风险管理工具的随机推出:使用实施研究综合框架(CFIR)的多方法实施评估。","authors":"Sharon A McCarthy,&nbsp;Matthew Chinman,&nbsp;Shari S Rogal,&nbsp;Gloria Klima,&nbsp;Leslie R M Hausmann,&nbsp;Maria K Mor,&nbsp;Mala Shah,&nbsp;Jennifer A Hale,&nbsp;Hongwei Zhang,&nbsp;Adam J Gordon,&nbsp;Walid F Gellad","doi":"10.1177/26334895221114665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a policy was implemented requiring VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized in STORM implementation to four arms based on required oversight and by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. To help evaluate this policy intervention, we aimed to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews; (2) assess variation across the four arms; and (3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. A total of 78 staff from 39 purposefully selected facilities were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were rated using the -2 to + 2 CFIR rating system. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two important CFIR constructs emerged as barriers to implementation: Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Little time to complete the CASE reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics.<b>Plain Language Summary:</b> The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a tool called the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation dashboard. This dashboard shows Veterans at risk for opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy required all VHA facilities to complete case reviews for Veterans who were at high risk for these events. To evaluate this policy implementation, 78 staff from 39 facilities were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) implementation framework was used to create the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into site memos. The site memos were rated using CFIR's -2 to +2 rating system. Ratings did not differ for four study arms related to oversight and timing. Ratings were not associated with facility characteristics. Leadership, engagement and implementation climate were the strongest facilitators for implementation. Lack of time, knowledge, and feedback were important barriers.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"3 ","pages":"26334895221114665"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/74/9e/10.1177_26334895221114665.PMC9924239.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).\",\"authors\":\"Sharon A McCarthy,&nbsp;Matthew Chinman,&nbsp;Shari S Rogal,&nbsp;Gloria Klima,&nbsp;Leslie R M Hausmann,&nbsp;Maria K Mor,&nbsp;Mala Shah,&nbsp;Jennifer A Hale,&nbsp;Hongwei Zhang,&nbsp;Adam J Gordon,&nbsp;Walid F Gellad\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26334895221114665\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a policy was implemented requiring VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized in STORM implementation to four arms based on required oversight and by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. To help evaluate this policy intervention, we aimed to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews; (2) assess variation across the four arms; and (3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. A total of 78 staff from 39 purposefully selected facilities were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were rated using the -2 to + 2 CFIR rating system. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two important CFIR constructs emerged as barriers to implementation: Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Little time to complete the CASE reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics.<b>Plain Language Summary:</b> The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a tool called the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation dashboard. This dashboard shows Veterans at risk for opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy required all VHA facilities to complete case reviews for Veterans who were at high risk for these events. To evaluate this policy implementation, 78 staff from 39 facilities were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) implementation framework was used to create the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into site memos. The site memos were rated using CFIR's -2 to +2 rating system. Ratings did not differ for four study arms related to oversight and timing. Ratings were not associated with facility characteristics. Leadership, engagement and implementation climate were the strongest facilitators for implementation. Lack of time, knowledge, and feedback were important barriers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"26334895221114665\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/74/9e/10.1177_26334895221114665.PMC9924239.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221114665\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221114665","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)开发了阿片类药物风险缓解分层工具(STORM)仪表板,以帮助识别有阿片类药物过量或自杀相关事件风险的退伍军人。2018年,实施了一项政策,要求VHA设施完成STORM确定为非常高风险不良事件的退伍军人的病例审查。在全国范围内,根据所需的监督和所需病例审查数量的增加时间,将STORM实施中的设施随机分为四个部门。为了帮助评估这一政策干预,我们的目标是:(1)确定实施案例审查的障碍和促进因素;(2)评估四臂间的变异;(3)评估设施特征与实施障碍和促进因素之间的关联。方法:使用实施研究综合框架(CFIR),我们开发了半结构化访谈指南,以检查实施风暴政策的障碍和促进因素。来自39个有目的地选择的设施的78名工作人员被邀请参加电话采访。采访记录被编码,然后组织成备忘录,使用-2到+ 2的CFIR评级系统进行评级。描述性统计用于评估每个CFIR结构的平均评分、评分与研究部门之间的关联,以及与CFIR评分相关的三个设施特征(规模、乡村性和学术细节)。我们使用每个站点的平均CFIR评分来确定哪些结构在总体CFIR得分最高和最低的站点之间存在差异,并详细描述了这些结构。结果:两个重要的cir结构成为实施的障碍:获取知识和信息以及评估和反思。完成CASE评审的时间太少是一个普遍的障碍。总体CFIR得分较高的网站显示了三个重要的促进因素:领导参与、参与和实施氛围。CFIR评分在四个研究组之间没有显著差异,也与设施特征无关。摘要:退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)创建了一个名为阿片类药物风险缓解仪表板分层工具的工具。这个仪表板显示了退伍军人有过量服用阿片类药物或自杀相关事件的风险。2018年,一项国家政策要求所有VHA设施完成对这些事件高风险退伍军人的病例审查。为了评价这项政策的执行情况,对来自39个设施的78名工作人员进行了访谈。采用实施研究综合框架(CFIR)实施框架创建访谈。采访记录被编码并组织成现场备忘录。现场备忘录使用CFIR的-2到+2评级系统进行评级。与监督和时机相关的四个研究组的评分没有差异。评级与设施特征无关。领导、参与和执行环境是最有力的执行促进因素。缺乏时间、知识和反馈是重要的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a policy was implemented requiring VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized in STORM implementation to four arms based on required oversight and by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. To help evaluate this policy intervention, we aimed to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews; (2) assess variation across the four arms; and (3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators.

Method: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. A total of 78 staff from 39 purposefully selected facilities were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were rated using the -2 to + 2 CFIR rating system. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail.

Results: Two important CFIR constructs emerged as barriers to implementation: Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Little time to complete the CASE reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics.Plain Language Summary: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a tool called the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation dashboard. This dashboard shows Veterans at risk for opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy required all VHA facilities to complete case reviews for Veterans who were at high risk for these events. To evaluate this policy implementation, 78 staff from 39 facilities were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) implementation framework was used to create the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into site memos. The site memos were rated using CFIR's -2 to +2 rating system. Ratings did not differ for four study arms related to oversight and timing. Ratings were not associated with facility characteristics. Leadership, engagement and implementation climate were the strongest facilitators for implementation. Lack of time, knowledge, and feedback were important barriers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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