Search

Implementation processes are often long and complex, requiring sustained facilitation efforts. Drawing on organizational and implementation literature, we examined the influence of senior management support (SMS), middle management support (MMS), facilitator team time availability (TIME) and team continuity (CONTINUITY) on sustainment of internal facilitation activities. For 2 years, we followed 10 small rural hospitals implementing TeamSTEPPS, a patient safety program, and conducted quarterly interviews with key informants. We coded, calibrated, and analyzed the data using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. We found that five hospitals sustained facilitation activities and the combination of SMS, MMS, and CONTINUITY (i.e., presence of all three factors) was a sufficient condition for sustainment. Five other hospitals did not sustain facilitation activities and they either lacked MMS or lacked both TIME and CONTINUITY. In follow-up analyses, we found that team leadership continuity also influenced sustainment patterns. We discussed the implications for research and practice.

Background: 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., Purpose: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusion: 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., Practice Implications: Understanding the types of facilitation activities and their distinguishing characteristics can assist managers in planning and executing implementations of evidence-based interventions.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed how substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services are delivered. In this qualitative study, we examined what changes SUD treatment programs in Arkansas implemented in response to the pandemic, what factors influenced their ability to implement these changes, and their reflections, outlook, and future recommendations. Methods: Between May and August 2020, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 29 leaders at 21 SUD programs throughout Arkansas. Interview questions focused on what changes programs implemented in response to the pandemic, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and future outlook. Interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: Programs implemented similar infection control practices, including COVID-19 screening at entry, masks, hand hygiene, and social distancing. Residential programs discontinued outside visitations and capped admissions, and outpatient programs implemented telehealth services. Clients generally responded well to the changes, however many experienced difficulties (e.g., anxiety, lack of access to telehealth). While programs welcomed additional financial support (e.g., CARES act) and looser regulatory restrictions (e.g., telehealth use), many struggled economically due to lower demand and insufficient reimbursement. Programs varied in leadership and staff responses to the pandemic, and in their capacity to implement the changes (e.g., facilities, staffing). Finally, interviewees acknowledged they were unprepared for the pandemic and were uncertain about the future. Conclusions: The insights from the COVID-19 pandemic and SUD programs' responses helps researchers, policymakers and practitioners understand what has happened during the pandemic, how to prepare for future crises, and how to build more resilient SUD and public health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the administration of the Hospital Leadership and Quality Assessment Tool (HLQAT) to evaluate quality improvement efforts of hospitals in the U.S. It describes the link between HLQAT results and performance of hospitals on the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Core Measures. Topics explored also include barriers to progress in hospital safety, the participation of hospital leaders in the HLQAT survey, and factors that contribute to hospital quality.