Search

Few studies have assessed the fidelity of practice facilitation (PF) as an implementation strategy, and none have used an a priori definition or conceptual framework of fidelity to guide fidelity assessment. The authors adapted the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity to guide fidelity assessment in HealthyHearts NYC, an intervention that used PF to improve adoption of cardiovascular disease evidence-based guidelines in primary care practices. Data from a web-based tracking system of 257 practices measured fidelity using 4 categories: frequency, duration, content, and coverage. Almost all (94.2%) practices received at least the required 13 PF visits. Facilitators spent on average 26.3 hours at each site. Most practices (95.7%) completed all Task List items, and 71.2% were educated on all Chronic Care Model strategies. The majority (65.8%) received full coverage. This study provides a model that practice managers and implementers can use to evaluate fidelity of PF, and potentially other implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Small independent primary care practices (SIPs) often lack the resources to implement system changes. HealthyHearts NYC, funded through the EvidenceNOW initiative of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, studied the effectiveness of practice facilitation to improve cardiovascular disease- related care in 257 SIPs. We sought to understand SIP clinicians' perspectives on the benefits of practice facilitation.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 SIP clinicians enrolled in HealthyHearts NYC. Interviews were transcribed and coded using deductive and inductive approaches. To understand whether the perceived benefits of practice facilitation differ based on the availability of internal staff for quality improvement (QI), we compared themes pertaining to benefits between practices with 3 or fewer office staff vs more than 3 office staff.Results: Clinicians perceived 2 main benefits of practice facilitation. First, facilitators served as a connection to the external health care environment for SIPs, often through teaching and information sharing. Second, facilitators provided electronic health record (EHR)/data expertise, often by teaching functionality and completing technical assistance and tasks. SIPs with more than 3 office staff felt that facilitators provided benefits primarily through teaching, whereas SIPs with 3 or fewer staff felt that facilitators also provided hands-on support. At the intersections of these benefits, there emerged 3 central practice facilitation benefits: (1) creating awareness of quality gaps, (2) connecting practices to information, resources, and strategies, and (3) optimizing the EHR for QI goals.Conclusions: SIP clinicians perceived practice facilitation to be an important resource for connecting their practice to the external health care environment and resources, and helping their practice build QI capacity through teaching, hands-on support, and EHR-driven solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We wanted to describe small, independent primary care practices' performance in meeting the Million Hearts ABCSs (aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking screening and counseling), as well as on a composite measure that captured the extent to which multiple clinical targets are achieved for patients with a history of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We also explored relationships between practice characteristics and ABCS measures.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, bivariate analysis using baseline data from 134 practices in New York City. ABCS data were extracted from practices' electronic health records and aggregated to the site level. Practice characteristics were obtained from surveys of clinicians and staff at each practice.Results: The proportion of at-risk patients meeting clinical goals for each of the ABCS measures was 73.0% for aspirin use, 69.6% for blood pressure, 66.7% for cholesterol management, and 74.2% screened for smoking and counseled. For patients with a history of ASCVD, only 49% were meeting all ABC (aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management) targets (ie, composite measure). Solo practices were more likely to meet clinical guidelines for aspirin (risk ratio [RR] =1.17, P =.007) and composite (RR=1.29, P = .011) than practices with multiple clinicians.Conclusion: Achieving targets for ABCS measures varied considerably across practices; however, small practices were meeting or exceeding Million Hearts goals (ie, 70% or greater). Practices were less likely to meet consistently clinical targets that apply to patients with a history of ASCVD risk factors. Greater emphasis is needed on providing support for small practices to address the complexity of managing patients with multiple risk factors for primary and secondary ASCVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: HealthyHearts NYC (HHNYC) will evaluate the effectiveness of practice facilitation as a quality improvement strategy for implementing the Million Hearts' ABCS treatment guidelines for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) among high-risk patients who receive care in primary care practices in New York City. ABCS refers to (A) aspirin in high-risk individuals; (B) blood pressure control; (C) cholesterol management; and (S) smoking cessation. The long-term goal is to create a robust infrastructure for implementing and disseminating evidence-based practice guidelines (EBPG) in primary care practices.Methods/design: We are using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial design to evaluate the implementation process and the impact of practice facilitation (PF) versus usual care on ABCS outcomes in 250 small primary care practices. Randomization is at the practice site level, all of which begin as part of the control condition. The intervention consists of one year of PF that includes a combination of one-on-one onsite visits and shared learning across practice sites. PFs will focus on helping sites implement evidence-based components of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) and the chronic care model (CCM), which include decision support, provider feedback, self-management tools and resources, and linkages to community-based services.Discussion: We hypothesize that practice facilitation will result in superior clinical outcomes compared to usual care; that the effects of practice facilitation will be mediated by greater adoption of system changes in accord with PCMH and CCM; and that there will be increased adaptive reserve and change capacity.Trial Registration: NCT02646488. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]