Search

Abstract Background Shared Decision-Making to discuss how the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening align with patient values is required by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and recommended by multiple organizations. Barriers at organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels prevent SDM from meeting quality standards in routine practice. We developed an implementation plan, using the socio-ecological model, for Shared Decision-Making for lung cancer screening for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. Because understanding the local context is critical to implementation success, we sought to proactively tailor our original implementation plan, to address barriers to achieving guideline-concordant lung cancer screening. Methods We conducted a formative evaluation using an ethnographic approach to proactively identify barriers to Shared Decision-Making and tailor our implementation plan. Data consisted of qualitative interviews with leadership and clinicians from seven VA New England medical centers, regional meeting notes, and Shared Decision-Making scripts and documents used by providers. Tailoring was guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS). Results We tailored the original implementation plan to address barriers we identified at the organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels. Overall, we removed two implementation strategies, added five strategies, and modified the content of two strategies. For example, at the clinician level, we learned that past personal and clinical experiences predisposed clinicians to focus on the benefits of lung cancer screening. To address this barrier, we modified the content of our original implementation strategy Make Training Dynamic to prompt providers to self-reflect about their screening beliefs and values, encouraging them to discuss both the benefits and potential harms of lung cancer screening. Conclusions Formative evaluations can be used to proactively tailor implementation strategies to fit local contexts. We tailored our implementation plan to address unique barriers we identified, with the goal of improving implementation success. The FRAME-IS aided our team in thoughtfully addressing and modifying our original implementation plan. Others seeking to maximize the effectiveness of complex interventions may consider using a similar approach.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been available to many U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system employees and Veteran patients since early 2021, vaccine receipt data indicates some groups are not receiving them. Our objective was to conduct a rapid qualitative assessment of Veterans’ and VA employees’ views on COVID-19 vaccination to inform clinical leaders’ ongoing efforts to increase vaccine uptake across the VA. We employed semi-structured interviews and a focus group involving employees and Veterans as part of a quality improvement project between January and June 2021 at three VA medical centers. Thirty-one employees and 27 Veterans participated in semi-structured interviews; 5 Veterans from a national stakeholder organization participated in a focus group. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, involving an a priori coding framework comprised of four domains with subcodes under each: contextual influences, barriers and facilitators, vaccine-specific issues, and VA/military experiences. We then classified initial codes into five categories of hesitancy: vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference and skepticism. A subset of Veterans (n = 14) and employees (n = 8) identified as vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy categories were represented by subcodes of religion, culture, gender or socio-economic factors, perceptions of politics and policies, role of healthcare providers, and historical influences; (contextual influences); knowledge or awareness of vaccines, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and beliefs and attitudes about health and illness (barriers and facilitators); vaccine development process (vaccine-specific issues) and military experiences (VA/military factors). Facilitators involved talking with trusted others, ease of vaccine access, and perceptions of family and societal benefits of vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is multi-faceted and likely requires multiple strategies for engaging in conversations to address Veteran and VA employee concerns. Messages should involve patient-centered communication strategies delivered by trusted healthcare providers and peers and should focus on addressing expected benefits for family, friends, and society.

Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants ( N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants’ perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants’ likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients’ behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants’ willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations’ disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves.

Abstract Background Many healthcare organizations have developed disclosure policies for large-scale adverse events, including the Veterans Health Administration (VA). This study evaluated VA’s national large-scale disclosure policy and identifies gaps and successes in its implementation. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with leaders, hospital employees, and patients at nine sites to elicit their perceptions of recent large-scale adverse events notifications and the national disclosure policy. Data were coded using the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results We conducted 97 interviews. Insights included how to handle the communication of large-scale disclosures through multiple levels of a large healthcare organization and manage ongoing communications about the event with employees. Of the 5 CFIR constructs and 26 sub-constructs assessed, seven were prominent in interviews. Leaders and employees specifically mentioned key problem areas involving 1) networks and communications during disclosure, 2) organizational culture, 3) engagement of external change agents during disclosure, and 4) a need for reflecting on and evaluating the policy implementation and disclosure itself. Patients shared 5) preferences for personal outreach by phone in place of the current use of certified letters. All interviewees discussed 6) issues with execution and 7) costs of the disclosure. Conclusions CFIR analysis reveals key problem areas that need to be addresses during disclosure, including: timely communication patterns throughout the organization, establishing a supportive culture prior to implementation, using patient-approved, effective communications strategies during disclosures; providing follow-up support for employees and patients, and sharing lessons learned.