Sylvia J Hysong1, Richard G Best, Jacqueline A Pugh. 1. Houston Center for Quality of Care & Utilization Studies, Baylor College of Medicine, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (152), 2002 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandated the system-wide implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the mid-1990s, arming all facilities with basic resources to facilitate implementation; despite this resource allocation, significant variability still exists across VA facilities in implementation success. OBJECTIVE: This study compares CPG implementation strategy patterns used by high and low performing primary care clinics in the VA. RESEARCH DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional study of a purposeful sample of six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) with high and low performance on six CPGs. SUBJECTS: One hundred and two employees (management, quality improvement, clinic personnel) involved with guideline implementation at each VAMC primary care clinic. MEASURES; Participants reported specific strategies used by their facility to implement guidelines in 1-hour semi-structured interviews. Facilities were classified as high or low performers based on their guideline adherence scores calculated through independently conducted chart reviews. FINDINGS: High performing facilities (HPFs) (a) invested significantly in the implementation of the electronic medical record and locally adapting it to provider needs, (b) invested dedicated resources to guideline-related initiatives, and (c) exhibited a clear direction in their strategy choices. Low performing facilities exhibited (a) earlier stages of development for their electronic medical record, (b) reliance on preexisting resources for guideline implementation, with little local adaptation, and (c) no clear direction in their strategy choices. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted, yet targeted, strategic approach to guideline implementation emphasizing dedicated resources and local adaptation may result in more successful implementation and higher guideline adherence than relying on standardized resources and taxing preexisting channels.
BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandated the system-wide implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the mid-1990s, arming all facilities with basic resources to facilitate implementation; despite this resource allocation, significant variability still exists across VA facilities in implementation success. OBJECTIVE: This study compares CPG implementation strategy patterns used by high and low performing primary care clinics in the VA. RESEARCH DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional study of a purposeful sample of six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) with high and low performance on six CPGs. SUBJECTS: One hundred and two employees (management, quality improvement, clinic personnel) involved with guideline implementation at each VAMC primary care clinic. MEASURES; Participants reported specific strategies used by their facility to implement guidelines in 1-hour semi-structured interviews. Facilities were classified as high or low performers based on their guideline adherence scores calculated through independently conducted chart reviews. FINDINGS: High performing facilities (HPFs) (a) invested significantly in the implementation of the electronic medical record and locally adapting it to provider needs, (b) invested dedicated resources to guideline-related initiatives, and (c) exhibited a clear direction in their strategy choices. Low performing facilities exhibited (a) earlier stages of development for their electronic medical record, (b) reliance on preexisting resources for guideline implementation, with little local adaptation, and (c) no clear direction in their strategy choices. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted, yet targeted, strategic approach to guideline implementation emphasizing dedicated resources and local adaptation may result in more successful implementation and higher guideline adherence than relying on standardized resources and taxing preexisting channels.
Authors: Bradley N Doebbeling; Thomas E Vaughn; Robert F Woolson; Paul M Peloso; Marcia M Ward; Elena Letuchy; Bonnie J BootsMiller; Toni Tripp-Reimer; Laurence G Branch Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Thomas E Vaughn; Kimberly D McCoy; Bonnie J BootsMiller; Robert F Woolson; Bernard Sorofman; Toni Tripp-Reimer; Jonathan Perlin; Bradley N Doebbeling Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Marcia M Ward; Thomas E Vaughn; Tanya Uden-Holman; Bradley N Doebbeling; William R Clarke; Robert F Woolson Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Adam A Markovitz; Rob G Holleman; Timothy P Hofer; Eve A Kerr; Mandi L Klamerus; Jeremy B Sussman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Byron J Powell; J Curtis McMillen; Enola K Proctor; Christopher R Carpenter; Richard T Griffey; Alicia C Bunger; Joseph E Glass; Jennifer L York Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2011-12-26 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: JoAnn E Kirchner; Jeffrey L Smith; Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Enola K Proctor Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Julian Brunner; Emmeline Chuang; Caroline Goldzweig; Cindy L Cain; Catherine Sugar; Elizabeth M Yano Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Shoou-Yih Daniel Lee; Bryan J Weiner; Marshall H Chin; Cynthia T Schaefer Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Amy Drahota; Rosemary D Meza; Tatiana E Bustos; Aksheya Sridhar; Jonathan I Martinez; Brigitte Brikho; Aubyn C Stahmer; Gregory A Aarons Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2020-09-18