Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Practical and feasible methods for matching implementation strategies to diagnosed barriers of evidence-based interventions in real-world contexts are lacking. This evaluation compared actual implementation strategies applied with those recommended by an expert opinion-based tool to improve guideline-concordant cirrhosis care in a Veterans Health Administration national learning collaborative effort. Methods This convergent parallel mixed-methods study aimed to (1) identify pre-implementation Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) barriers to cirrhosis care through focus groups with frontline providers, (2) generate 20 recommended strategies using focus group identified barriers entered into the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Implementation Strategy Matching Tool, (3) survey providers over two consecutive years on the actual use of 73 ERIC strategies and determine strategy effectiveness, (4) compare actual versus recommended strategy use, and (5) compare actual versus expected barriers by reverse applying the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool. Results Eighteen semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 197 providers representing 95 VA sites to identify barriers to quality improvement, including cirrhosis care complexity, clarity of national goals, and local leadership support. The CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool recommended strategies such as assessing for readiness and needs, promoting adaptability, building local groups, preparing champions, and working with opinion leaders and early adopters. Subsequent strategy surveys found that sites used the top 20 “recommended” strategies no more frequently than other strategies. However, 14 (70%) of the top recommended strategies were significantly positively associated with cirrhosis care compared to 48% of actual strategies. Reverse CFIR-ERIC matching found that the strategies most used in the first year corresponded to the following barriers: opinion leaders, access to knowledge and information, and resources. The strategies most frequently employed in the second year addressed barriers such as champions, cosmopolitanism, readiness for implementation, relative priority, and patient needs and resources. Strategies used in both years were those that addressed adaptability, trialability, and compatibility. Conclusions This study is among the first to empirically evaluate the relationship between CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool recommended strategies and actual strategy selection and effectiveness in the real world. We found closer connections between recommended strategies and strategy effectiveness compared to strategy frequency, suggesting validity of barrier identification, and application of the expert-informed tool.

Background Screening for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, specifically colorectal cancer (CRC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is often inadequately and inequitably implemented, leading to preventable morbidity and mortality. This protocol paper describes a study designed to compare the effectiveness of external facilitation with patient navigation across hospitals in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Methods Two hybrid type 3, cluster-randomized trials will compare the effectiveness of patient navigation versus external facilitation for supporting HCC and CRC screening completion. Twenty-four sites will be included in the HCC trial and 32 in the CRC trial, cluster-randomizing Veterans by their site of primary care. The primary outcome of reach of cancer screening completion will be measured after intervention and during sustainment. Multi-level implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators), preconditions, and moderators will be evaluated pre- and post-intervention, using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-mapped surveys and interviews of Veteran participants and provider participants. Discussion Comparing findings in the two trials will allow researchers to understand how implementation barriers and strategies operate differently for a one-time screening in a relatively healthy population (CRC) vs. repeated screening in a more medically complex population (HCC). Trial registration This project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT06458998) on 6/13/24. 

Background Because cirrhosis is often unrecognized, we aimed to develop a stepwise screening algorithm for cirrhosis in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and assess this approach’s feasibility and acceptability. Methods VHA hepatology clinicians (“champions”) were invited to participate in a pilot program from June 2020 to October 2022. The VHA Corporate Data Warehouse was queried to identify Veterans with possible undiagnosed cirrhosis using Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) ≥ 3.25 and at least one risk factor for liver disease (e.g., obesity), and generate an age-stratified sample. Champions at four sites reviewed charts to confirm eligibility and contacted Veterans to offer further evaluation with elastography. Feasibility was defined as protocol implementation with completion of at least one elastography test and acceptability was defined based on Veteran- and clinician-reported surveys. Participation in the program, patient outcomes, adaptations to the protocol, and implementation barriers were also assessed. Results Four sites were able to implement the screening protocol. Adaptations included type of outreach (primary care vs. hepatology, phone vs. mail) and type of elastography used. One site chose to refer patients with clear evidence of cirrhosis directly to hepatology ( n  = 12) rather than to elastography. Key implementation barriers included staffing, primary care provider (PCP) comfort with interpreting and communicating results, and appointment availability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 488 patients whose charts were reviewed, 230 were excluded from outreach based on predefined criteria (e.g., advanced cancer, prior or current referral to hepatology). Champions and PCPs attempted to contact 165 of 246 Veterans who were deemed eligible for evaluation with elastography. Among 53 Veterans who completed elastography, 22 (42%) had findings consistent with significant fibrosis and were referred to hepatology. Clinicians and Veterans reported high acceptability of the program on surveys (80% of Veterans who completed survey). Conclusions This pilot demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability, and challenges of a multisite approach to cirrhosis screening.

Background While guidelines recommend twice-yearly liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC) surveillance for people with cirrhosis, adherence to these guidelines remains variable. We aimed to empirically identify and apply successful implementation strategies through Getting to Implementation (GTI), a manualized facilitation approach. Methods A hybrid type III, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial was conducted at 12 underperforming Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites between October 2020 and October 2022. GTI included a stepwise approach to guide sites to detail their current state, set implementation goals, identify implementation barriers, select implementation strategies, make a work plan, conduct an evaluation, and sustain their work. Outcomes were defined using the Reach , Effectiveness , Adoption , Implementation , and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Results Facilitators supported site teams with an average of 20±6 facilitation hours over a 12-month period. Ten of 12 sites (83%) adopted GTI and applied a median of five strategies (e.g., dashboard use, small tests of change, direct patient outreach). Reach , the primary outcome, increased from mean 29.1% to mean 38.8% at-risk Veterans receiving HCC surveillance from pre- to post-intervention, and further increasing to 41.3% in the sustainment period. In both unadjusted and adjusted models, the odds of HCC surveillance were significantly higher during intervention (adjusted odds ratio, aOR=1.67, 95% CI:1.59, 1.75) and during sustainment (aOR=1.69, 95% CI:1.60, 1.78) compared with baseline, and with difference between active and sustainment periods, indicating sustained improvement after active facilitation ended. Conclusions GTI sustainably improved HCC surveillance, suggesting that applying data-driven implementation strategies within a manualized facilitation approach can improve care. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04178096

BackgroundThe Veterans Health Administration provides care to more than 100,000 Veterans with cirrhosis.AimsThis implementation evaluation aimed to understand organizational resources and barriers associated with cirrhosis care.MethodsClinicians across 145 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) were surveyed in 2022 about implementing guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. VA Corporate Data Warehouse data were used to assess VAMC performance on two national cirrhosis quality measures: HCC surveillance and esophageal variceal surveillance or treatment (EVST). Organizational factors associated with higher performance were identified using linear regression models.ResultsResponding VAMCs (n = 124, 86%) ranged in resource availability, perceived barriers, and care processes. In multivariable models, factors independently associated with HCC surveillance included on-site interventional radiology and identifying patients overdue for surveillance using a national cirrhosis population management tool (“dashboard”). EVST was significantly associated with dashboard use and on-site gastroenterology services. For larger VAMCs, the average HCC surveillance rate was similar between VAMCs using vs. not using the dashboard (47% vs. 41%), while for smaller and less resourced VAMCs, dashboard use resulted in a 13% rate difference (46% vs. 33%). Likewise, higher EVST rates were more strongly associated with dashboard use in smaller (55% vs. 50%) compared to larger (57% vs. 55%) VAMCs.ConclusionsResources, barriers, and care processes varied across diverse VAMCs. Smaller VAMCs without specialty care achieved HCC and EVST surveillance rates nearly as high as more complex and resourced VAMCs if they used a population management tool to identify the patients due for cirrhosis care.

Background and Aims To improve subspecialty access, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) implemented the first Specialty Care Access Network (SCAN)-Extension of Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) in chronic liver disease. SCAN-ECHO Liver links primary care providers (PCPs) to hepatologists via secure video-teleconferencing. We aim to describe characteristics of participants (PCPs) and patients (clinical question and diagnosis) in SCAN-ECHO Liver. Methods This is a prospective study of the VAAAHS SCAN-ECHO Liver (June 10, 2011–March 31, 2015). This evaluation was carried out as a non-research activity under the guidance furnished by VHA Handbook 1058.05. It was approved through the Medicine Service at VAAAHS as noted in the attestation document which serves as documentation of approved non-research, quality improvement activities in VHA. Results In total, 106 PCPs from 23 sites participated. A total of 155 SCAN-ECHO sessions discussed 519 new and 49 return patients. 29.4% of Liver Clinic requests were completed in SCAN-ECHO Liver. SCAN-ECHO Liver consults were completed an average of 10 days sooner than in conventional clinic. Potential travel saving was 250 miles round-trip (median 255 (IQR 142–316) per patient. Conclusion SCAN-ECHO Liver provided specialty care with increased efficiency and convenience for chronic liver disease patients. One of three of Liver Clinic consults was diverted to SCAN-ECHO Liver, reducing consult completion time by 20%.

After implementing a successful hepatitis C elimination program, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative pivoted to focus on improving cirrhosis care. This national program developed teams of providers across the country and engaged them in using systems redesign methods and population health approaches to improve care. The HIT Collaborative developed an Advanced Liver Disease (ALD) Dashboard to identify Veterans with cirrhosis who were due for surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and other liver care, promoted the use of an HCC Clinical Reminder in the electronic health record, and provided training and networking opportunities. This evaluation aimed to describe the VHA’s approach to improving cirrhosis care and identify the facility factors and HIT activities associated with HCC surveillance rates, using a quasi-experimental design. Across all VHA facilities, as the HIT focused on cirrhosis between 2018–2019, HCC surveillance rates increased from 46% (IQR 37–53%) to 51% (IQR 42–60%, p < 0.001). The median HCC surveillance rate was 57% in facilities with high ALD Dashboard utilization compared with 45% in facilities with lower utilization (p < 0.001) and 58% in facilities using the HCC Clinical Reminder compared with 47% in facilities not using this tool (p < 0.001) in FY19. Increased use of the ALD Dashboard and adoption of the HCC Clinical Reminder were independently, significantly associated with HCC surveillance rates in multivariate models, controlling for other facility characteristics. In conclusion, the VHA’s HIT Collaborative is a national healthcare initiative associated with significant improvement in HCC surveillance rates.

Access to subspecialty care may be difficult for patients with liver disease, but it is unknown whether access influences outcomes among this population. Our objectives were to determine rates and predictors of access to ambulatory gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialty care for patients with liver disease and to determine whether access to subspecialty GI care is associated with better survival. We studied 28,861 patients within the Veterans Administration VISN 11 Liver Disease cohort who had an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for liver disease from 1 January 2000 through 30 May 2011. Access was defined as a completed outpatient clinic visit with a gastroenterologist or hepatologist at any time after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of access to a GI subspecialist. Survival curves were compared between those who did and those who did not see a specialist, with propensity score adjustment to account for other covariates that may affect access. Overall, 10,710 patients (37%) had a completed GI visit. On multivariable regression, older patients (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, P<0.001), those with more comorbidities (OR 0.98, P=0.01), and those living farther from a tertiary-care center (OR 0.998/mi, P<0.001) were less likely to be seen in clinic. Patients who were more likely to be seen included those who had hepatitis C (OR 1.5, P<0.001) or cirrhosis (OR 3.5, P<0.001) diagnoses prior to their initial visit. Patients with an ambulatory GI visit at any time after diagnosis were less likely to die at 5 years when compared with propensity-score-matched controls (hazard ratio 0.81, P<0.001). Access to ambulatory GI care was associated with improved 5-year survival for patients with liver disease. Innovative care coordination techniques may prove beneficial in extending access to care to liver disease patients.