Search

Background: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research.Methods: STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC.Results: Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools.Conclusion: Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Variations in processes for different clinics and health systems can dramatically change the way preventive interventions are implemented. We present a method for documenting these variations using workflow diagrams and demonstrate how understanding workflow aided an electronic health record (EHR) embedded colorectal cancer screening intervention. Materials and Methods: We mapped variation in processes for ordering and documenting fecal testing, current colonoscopy, prior colonoscopies, and pathology results. This work was part of a multi-site cluster-randomized pragmatic trial to test a mailed approach to offering fecal testing at 26 safety net clinics (in eight organizations) in Oregon and Northern California. We created clinic-specific workflow diagrams and then distilled them into consolidated diagrams that captured the variations. Results: Clinics had varied practices for storing and using information about colorectal cancer screening. Developing workflow diagrams of key processes enabled clinics to find optimal ways to send fecal test kits to patients due for screening. The workflows informed the rollout of new EHR tools and identified best practices for data capture. Discussion: Diagramming workflows can have great utility when implementing and refining EHR tools for clinical practice, especially when doing so across multiple clinical sites. The process of developing the workflows uncovered successful practice recommendations and revealed limitations and potential effects of a research intervention. Conclusion: Our method of documenting clinical process variation might inform other EHR-powered, multi-site research and can improve data feedback from EHR systems to clinical caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Challenges of recruiting participants into pragmatic trials, particularly at the level of the health system, remain largely unexplored. As part of Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), we recruited eight separate community health centers (consisting of 26 individual safety net clinics) into a large comparative effectiveness pragmatic study to evaluate methods of raising the rates of colorectal cancer screening. Methods: In partnership with STOP CRC’s advisory board, we defined criteria to identify eligible health centers and applied these criteria to a list of health centers in Washington, Oregon, and California affiliated with Oregon Community Health Information Network, a 16-state practice-based research network of federally sponsored health centers. Project staff contacted centers that met eligibility criteria and arranged in-person meetings of key study investigators with health center leadership teams. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to thematically analyze the content of discussions during these meetings to identify major facilitators of and barriers to health center participation. Results: From an initial list of 41 health centers, 11 met the initial inclusion criteria. Of these, leaders at three centers declined and at eight centers (26 clinic sites) agreed to participate (73%). Participating and nonparticipating health centers were similar with respect to clinic size, percent Hispanic patients, and percent uninsured patients. Participating health centers had higher proportions of Medicaid patients and higher baseline colorectal cancer screening rates. Common facilitators of participation were perception by center leadership that the project was an opportunity to increase colorectal cancer screening rates and to use electronic health record tools for population management. Barriers to participation were concerns of center leaders about ability to provide fecal testing to and assure follow-up of uninsured patients, limited clinic capacity to prepare mailings required by the study protocol, discomfort with randomization, and concerns about delaying program implementation at some clinics due to the research requirements. Conclusion: Our findings address an important research gap and may inform future efforts to recruit community health centers into pragmatic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]