Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166974›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2024

Cluster-randomized implementation trial of two facilitation strategies to implement a novel information and communications technology at the Veterans Health Administration.

Chelsea Leonard, Evan Carey, Ariel Holstein, P Michael Ho, Jeffrey T Heckman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Chelsea LeonardDenver-Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered & Value-Driven Care (COIN), VA Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Chelsea.Leonard@va.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-4865-4658
Evan CareyDenver-Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered & Value-Driven Care (COIN), VA Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Ariel HolsteinDenver-Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered & Value-Driven Care (COIN), VA Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
P Michael HoDenver-Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered & Value-Driven Care (COIN), VA Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Jeffrey T HeckmanPhysical Medicine & Rehabilitation Service, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital and Clinics, Tampa, FL, USA.
Denver VA Medical Center · USColorado School of Public Health · USUniversity of South Florida · USVA Eastern Colorado Health Care System · US

Funding

Quality Enhancement Research Initiative PEC 19-309
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation and communication technologies (ICTs) improve quality and efficiency of healthcare, but effective practices for implementing new ICTs are unknown. From 2019 to 2021, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented FLOW3, an ICT that facilitates prosthetic limb care. The goal of this study was to compare the impact of two facilitation strategies on FLOW3 adoption, implementation, and sustainment.

methodsFLOW3 is a computerized workflow management system comprised of three applications that facilitate the three steps for prosthesis authorization. During VHA's implementation of FLOW3, we randomized 60 VHA sites to basic or enhanced facilitation groups. Basic facilitation included a manualized training toolkit and office hours. Enhanced facilitation included basic facilitation plus monthly learning collaboratives and site-specific performance reports. Outcomes included time to adoption of FLOW3 and complete FLOW3 utilization rates during implementation and sustainment periods. We compared outcomes between sites assigned to basic versus enhanced facilitation groups. Results were calculated using both intent-to-treat (ITT) and dose-response analyses. The dose-response analysis used a per-protocol approach and required sites in the enhanced facilitation group to join two of six learning collaboratives; sites that attended fewer were reassigned to the basic group.

resultsRandomization assigned 30 sites to enhanced facilitation and 30 to basic. Eighteen of 30 randomized sites were included in the enhanced facilitation group for dose-response analysis. During the implementation period, enhanced facilitation sites were significantly more likely to completely utilize FLOW3 than basic facilitation sites (HR: 0.17; 95% CI: 1.18, 4.53, p = 0.02) based on ITT analysis. In the dose-response analysis, the enhanced group was 2.32 (95% CI: 1.18, 4.53) times more likely to adopt FLOW3 than basic group (p = 0.014).

conclusionsEnhanced facilitation including a learning collaborative and customized feedback demonstrated greater likelihood for sites to complete a prosthetics consult using FLOW3 throughout our study. We identified statistically significant differences in likelihood of adoption using the dose-response analysis and complete utilization rate using ITT analysis during the implementation period. All sites that implemented FLOW3 demonstrated improvement in completion rate during the sustainment period, but the difference between facilitation groups was not statistically significant. Further study to understand sustainability is warranted.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareVeterans HealthCommunicationHumansImplementation ScienceTechnologyFacilitationImplementationInformation and communication technology

Identifiers

PMID38166974
PMCPMC10759444
OpenAlexW4390507263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.