Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesThis study examines types and forms of cross-sector collaborations employed by rural communities to address community health issues and identifies factors facilitating or inhibiting such collaborations.SettingWe conducted case studies of four rural communities in the US state of Iowa that have demonstrated progress in creating healthier communities.ParticipantsKey informants from local public health departments, hospitals and other health-promoting organisations and groups participated in this study. Twenty-two key-informant interviews were conducted. Participants were selected based on their organisation’s involvement in community health initiatives.ResultsRural communities used different forms of collaborations, including cross-sector partnership, cross-sector interaction and cross-sector exploration, to address community health issues. Stakeholders from public health, healthcare, social services, education and business sectors were involved. Factors facilitating cross-sector collaborations include health-promoting local contexts, seed initiatives that mobilise communities, hospital visions that embrace broad views of health and shared collaboration leadership and governance. Challenges to developing and sustaining cross-sector collaborations include different institutional logics, financial and human resources constraints and geographic dispersion.ConclusionsRural communities use cross-sector collaborations to address community health issues in the forms of interaction and exploration, but real and lasting partnerships are rare. The development, operation and sustainment of cross-sector collaborations are influenced by a set of contextual and practical factors. Practical strategies and policy interventions may be used to enhance cross-sector collaborations in rural communities.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This study informs how substance use treatment programs responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights implication for future translational research and practice. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed how substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services are organized and provided. This study examined what changes SUD treatment programs in Arkansas implemented (e.g., guidelines, technologies), and what factors influenced their ability to implement and sustain these changes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Between May and August 2020, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 29 leaders (administrative and/or clinical leaders) at 21 residential and outpatient SUD treatment programs throughout Arkansas (i.e., in all five Arkansas public health regions). Interviews were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and focused on what changes programs were implementing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and recommendations for future. The interviews were on average about 30 minutes long, and we provided no participant compensation. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, then thematically analyzed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Programs implemented similar infection control practices: screening at entry, masks, hand hygiene, and social distancing. Residential programs stopped outside visitations and some capped admissions; outpatient programs stopped group sessions and switched most services to telehealth. Key facilitators included grants/loans (e.g., salaries), looser regulatory restrictions (e.g., telehealth), and good coordination with other organizations (e.g., state agencies). Key barriers included limited access to supplies (e.g., masks), no rapid testing (particularly for residential care), limited capacity for social distancing, and negative employee and client responses (e.g., anxiety). Key recommendations include better access to supplies and testing, telehealth continuation and better communication. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: This study provides an insight into how SUD programs responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and what the ‘new normal’ is. This can inform D&I studies conducted in SUD settings, including studies examining what implementation strategies can help sustain these changes, or studies of other practices implemented during or after the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Supervision is a promising strategy for supporting high-fidelity implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in substance use disorder (SUD) settings. In this study, we explore current supervision practices in community SUD programs and identify organizational and environmental factors that shape them. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We interviewed 25 leaders and counselors at 8 community SUD programs in Arkansas, and 16 leaders at external stakeholder organizations (e.g., regulators, payers, licensing boards). Interview guides were based on the i-PARIHS framework. Interviews were conducted on Zoom or phone, lasted ~1 hour, and were recorded and transcribed. Below we outline findings based on preliminary analyses; full thematic analyses will be completed before presentation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants generally recognized the importance of utilizing EBPs and supporting their use through supervision. Counselors professional backgrounds and training vary substantially, necessitating continuing education and supervision. However, different professional, licensing and regulatory standards create a complex web of requirements and practices. Supervisors typically require clinical experience, but are rarely trained in supervision. They are internal or external to the organization, and provide individual or group supervision. Supervisors most often rely on case summaries and chart reviews, sometimes on direct observations and role-playing, and rarely (one program) on session recordings. Supervision goals are broad, and while EBP use is encouraged, it is rarely the focus of supervision. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: To enhance supervision in community SUD settings and improve implementation of EBPs, new supervision strategies need to fit the various norms, expectations, and standards (e.g., professional, regulatory) that characterize community SUD programs, their workforce, and their environments.

Practice‐based research networks (PBRNs) support the translation and evaluation of evidence‐based practices and interventions on a large scale and have primarily been used in primary care settings. Few pharmacy PBRNs exist. Our objective is to describe the composition and characteristics of the Rural Research Alliance of Community Pharmacies (RURAL‐CP), which is the first PBRN exclusively for rural community pharmacies. For each enrolled pharmacy, a pharmacist liaison completed a survey that assessed the pharmacy's operational characteristics, including business operations, human resource management, division of clinical responsibilities, technology and enhanced services, organizational context, and research priorities. Additionally, up to five other pharmacy staff members completed a brief survey on organizational context. Descriptive statistics were calculated. As of May 2023, there were 126 pharmacies across seven southeastern states that were enrolled in RURAL‐CP. Most pharmacies (91%) were independent pharmacies and operated 6 days per week (82%). On average, pharmacies employed 10 staff members and most trained student pharmacists. Pharmacies offered valuable services in their community, including immunizations, naloxone dispensing, and medication delivery. Blood glucose testing was the most common point‐of‐care (POC) test offered, and most pharmacies were interested in expanding POC offerings, particularly A1c testing and cholesterol screening. RURAL‐CP pharmacies have, on average, relatively strong organizational contexts and readiness for change. Pharmacists' top research priorities were expansion of clinical services, reimbursement, patient adherence, and addressing diabetes and hypertension. Although not generalizable to all rural pharmacies, results indicate that rural pharmacies deliver many important services in their communities and are interested in increasing services provided.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This formative evaluation can inform selection and development of implementation strategies for implementing this and other similar interventions in future implementation studies or practice. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Al-Anon mutual-help groups help concerned others (COs; e.g., families, friends) of persons with an alcohol use disorder better cope with their own problems. Despite widespread availability of Al-Anon meetings, participation is limited. We developed and evaluated an intervention to facilitate CO engagement in Al-Anon. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Al-Anon Intensive Referral (AIR) was developed to facilitate COs’ engagement in Al-Anon through four coaching sessions and is being tested in a NIAAA-funded randomized controlled trial (RCT). Consistent with a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design, we also conducted a formative evaluation to learn about facilitators, barriers and recommendations for AIR implementation in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs. We interviewed key informants (director and two staff) at eight sites in the AIR RCT and two ‘naive’ sites unfamiliar with AIR. Sites included community and Veterans Administration (VA) treatment programs in Arkansas, California, and Nebraska. Semi-structured interviews were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and were thematically analyzed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Facilitators included AIR’s face validity, adaptability, and alignment with staff values and skills, requiring only minimal training. Several community sites thought AIR would fit with their current practices (e.g. family groups), and some sites reported having sufficient staff available for delivering AIR. Barriers included limited staff time (some sites), and VA sites having limited resources for providing services to COs. Furthermore, many clients have no COs, or COs who are unwilling or unable to engage. Recommendations included fitting AIR within existing workflows and focusing on COs with highest readiness. Participants also thought AIR could be adapted as an online or smartphone app, which may expand its reach to younger and more tech-savvy populations while decreasing staff burden. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: AIR has strong potential for implementation, but sites vary on implementation capacity and readiness. Most sites could implement it partially (e.g., case-by-case basis), and sites with sufficient capacity (e.g., family groups, staff time) could implement it more fully. An app-based AIR could help mitigate some barriers.

Abstract Background Personal protective equipment (PPE) helps protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from pathogens and prevents cross-contamination. PPE effectiveness is often undermined by inappropriate doffing methods. Our knowledge of how HCWs approach doffing PPE in practice is limited. In this qualitative study, we examine HCWs’ perspectives about doffing PPE. Methods Thirty participants at a Midwestern academic hospital were recruited and assigned to 1 of 3 doffing simulation scenarios: 3 mask designs (n = 10), 2 gown designs (n = 10), or 2 glove designs (n = 10). Participants were instructed to doff PPE as they would in routine practice. Their performances were video-recorded and reviewed with participants. Semistructured interviews about their doffing approaches were conducted and audio-recorded, then transcribed and thematically analyzed. Results Three overarching themes were identified in interviews: doffing strategies, cognitive processes, and barriers and facilitators. Doffing strategies included doffing safely (minimizing self-contamination) and doffing expediently (eg, ripping PPE off). Cognitive processes during doffing largely pertained to tracking contaminated PPE surfaces, examining PPE design cues (eg, straps), or improvising based on prior experience from training or similar PPE designs. Doffing barriers and facilitators typically related to PPE design, such as PPE fit (or lack of it) and fastener type. Some participants also described personal barriers (eg, glasses, long hair); however, some PPE designs helped mitigate these barriers. Conclusions Efforts to improve HCWs’ doffing performance need to address HCWs’ preferences for both safety and expediency when using PPE, which has implications for PPE design, training approaches, and hospital policies and procedures. Healthcare workers seek both safety and expediency when doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). While doffing, they track contaminated surfaces, follow design cues, and rely on experience to improvise. They encounter numerous doffing barriers and facilitators, chiefly pertaining to PPE design.

Implementation models, frameworks, and theories recognize the importance of activities that facilitate implementation success. However, little is known about internal facilitation activities that hospital personnel engage in during implementation efforts. The aim of the study was to examine internal facilitation activities at 10 critical access hospitals in rural Iowa during their implementation of TeamSTEPPS, a patient safety intervention, and to identify characteristics that distinguish different types of facilitation activities. We followed 10 critical access hospitals for 2 years after the onset of implementation, conducting quarterly interviews with key informants. On the basis of the transcripts from the first two quarters, a coding template was developed using inductive analyses. The template was then applied deductively to code all interview transcripts. Using comparative analysis, we examined the characteristics that distinguish between the facilitation types. We identified four types of facilitation activities-Leadership, Buy-in, Customization, and Accountability. Individuals and teams engaged in different types of facilitation activities, both in a planned and an ad hoc manner. These activities targeted at both people and practices and exhibited varying temporal patterns (start and peak time). There are four types of facilitation activities that hospitals engage in while implementing evidence-based practices, offering a parsimonious way to characterize facilitation activities. New theoretical and empirical research opportunities are discussed. Understanding the types of facilitation activities and their distinguishing characteristics can assist managers in planning and executing implementations of evidence-based interventions.

We sought to investigate temporal trends in telehealth availability among outpatient mental health treatment facilities and differences in the pace of telehealth growth by state urbanicity and rurality. We used the National Mental Health Services Survey (2015–2020) to identify outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the US (N = 28,989 facilities; 2015 n = 5,018; 2020 n = 4,889). We used logistic regression to model telehealth, predicted by time, state rurality (1 to 10% rural, 10 to < 20%, 20 to < 30%, or ≥ 30%), and their interaction, and adjusted for relevant covariates. We estimated the predicted probability of telehealth based on our model. We estimated effects with and without data from 2020 to assess whether the rapid and widespread adoption of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic changed the rural/urban trajectories of telehealth availability. We found that telehealth grew fastest in more urban states (year*rurality interaction p < 0.0001). Between 2015 and 2020, the predicted probability of telehealth in more urban states increased by 51 percentage points (from 9 to 61%), whereas telehealth in more rural states increased by 38 percentage points (from 23 to 61%). Predicted telehealth also varied widely by state, ranging from more than 75% of facilities (RI, OR) to below 20% (VT, KY). Health systems and new technological innovations must consider the unique challenges faced by urban populations and how best practices may be adapted to meet the growing urban demand. We framed our findings around the need for policies that minimize barriers to telehealth.

Healthcare personnel (HCP) may encounter unfamiliar personal protective equipment (PPE) during clinical duties, yet we know little about their doffing strategies in such situations. To better understand how HCP navigate encounters with unfamiliar PPE and the factors that influence their doffing strategies. The study was conducted at 2 Midwestern academic hospitals. The study included 70 HCP: 24 physicians and resident physicians, 31 nurses, 5 medical or nursing students, and 10 other staff. Among them, 20 had special isolation unit training. Participants completed 1 of 4 doffing simulation scenarios involving 3 mask designs, 2 gown designs, 2 glove designs, and a full PPE ensemble. Doffing simulations were video-recorded and reviewed with participants during think-aloud interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants identified familiarity with PPE items and designs as an important factor in doffing. When encountering unfamiliar PPE, participants cited aspects of their routine practices such as designs typically used, donning and doffing frequency, and design cues, and their training as impacting their doffing strategies. Furthermore, they identified nonintuitive design and lack of training as barriers to doffing unfamiliar PPE appropriately. PPE designs may not be interchangeable, and their use may not be intuitive. HCP drew on routine practices, experiences with familiar PPE, and training to adapt doffing strategies for unfamiliar PPE. In doing so, HCP sometimes deviated from best practices meant to prevent self-contamination. Hospital policies and procedures should include ongoing and/or just-in-time training to ensure HCP are equipped to doff different PPE designs encountered during clinical care.

A particularly useful model for examining implementation of quality improvement interventions in health care settings is the PARIHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework developed by Kitson and colleagues. The PARIHS framework proposes three elements (evidence, context, and facilitation) that are related to successful implementation. An evidence-based program focused on quality enhancement in health care, termed TeamSTEPPS (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), has been widely promoted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, but research is needed to better understand its implementation. We apply the PARIHS framework in studying TeamSTEPPS implementation to identify elements that are most closely related to successful implementation. Quarterly interviews were conducted over a 9-month period in 13 small rural hospitals that implemented TeamSTEPPS. Interview quotes that were related to each of the PARIHS elements were identified using directed content analysis. Transcripts were also scored quantitatively, and bivariate regression analysis was employed to explore relationships between PARIHS elements and successful implementation related to planning activities. The current findings provide support for the PARIHS framework and identified two of the three PARIHS elements (context and facilitation) as important contributors to successful implementation. This study applies the PARIHS framework to TeamSTEPPS, a widely used quality initiative focused on improving health care quality and patient safety. By focusing on small rural hospitals that undertook this quality improvement activity of their own accord, our findings represent effectiveness research in an understudied segment of the health care delivery system. By identifying context and facilitation as the most important contributors to successful implementation, these analyses provide a focus for efficient and effective sustainment of TeamSTEPPS efforts.