OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented electronic consults (e-consults) as an alternative to in-person specialty visits to improve access and reduce travel for veterans. We conducted an evaluation to understand variation in the use of the new e-consult mechanism and the causes of variable implementation, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative case studies of 3 high- and 5 low-implementation e-consult pilot sites. Participants included e-consult site leaders, primary care providers, specialists, and support staff identified using a modified snowball sample. METHODS: We used a 3-step approach, with a structured survey of e-consult site leaders to identify key constructs, based on the CFIR. We then conducted open-ended interviews, focused on key constructs, with all participants. Finally, we produced structured, site-level ratings of CFIR constructs and compared them between high- and low-implementation sites. RESULTS: Site leaders identified 14 initial constructs. We conducted 37 interviews, from which 4 CFIR constructs distinguished high implementation e-consult sites: compatibility, networks and communications, training, and access to knowledge and information. For example, illustrating compatibility, a specialist at a high-implementation site reported that the site changed the order of consult options so that all specialties listed e-consults first to maintain consistency. High-implementation sites also exhibited greater agreement on constructs. CONCLUSIONS: By using the CFIR to analyze results, we facilitate future synthesis with other findings, and we better identify common patterns of implementation determinants common across settings.
OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented electronic consults (e-consults) as an alternative to in-person specialty visits to improve access and reduce travel for veterans. We conducted an evaluation to understand variation in the use of the new e-consult mechanism and the causes of variable implementation, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative case studies of 3 high- and 5 low-implementation e-consult pilot sites. Participants included e-consult site leaders, primary care providers, specialists, and support staff identified using a modified snowball sample. METHODS: We used a 3-step approach, with a structured survey of e-consult site leaders to identify key constructs, based on the CFIR. We then conducted open-ended interviews, focused on key constructs, with all participants. Finally, we produced structured, site-level ratings of CFIR constructs and compared them between high- and low-implementation sites. RESULTS: Site leaders identified 14 initial constructs. We conducted 37 interviews, from which 4 CFIR constructs distinguished high implementation e-consult sites: compatibility, networks and communications, training, and access to knowledge and information. For example, illustrating compatibility, a specialist at a high-implementation site reported that the site changed the order of consult options so that all specialties listed e-consults first to maintain consistency. High-implementation sites also exhibited greater agreement on constructs. CONCLUSIONS: By using the CFIR to analyze results, we facilitate future synthesis with other findings, and we better identify common patterns of implementation determinants common across settings.
Authors: Cheryl B Stetler; Marcia W Legro; Carolyn M Wallace; Candice Bowman; Marylou Guihan; Hildi Hagedorn; Barbara Kimmel; Nancy D Sharp; Jeffrey L Smith Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Colin Buzza; Sarah S Ono; Carolyn Turvey; Stacy Wittrock; Matt Noble; Gautam Reddy; Peter J Kaboli; Heather Schacht Reisinger Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Donna L Washington; Bevanne Bean-Mayberry; Alison B Hamilton; Kristina M Cordasco; Elizabeth M Yano Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David E Goodrich; Claire H Robinson; Carol E Fletcher; Julie C Lowery Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Chelsea Leonard; Rachael R Kenney; Marcie Lee; Preston Greene; Melanie Whittington; Susan Kirsh; P Michael Ho; George Sayre; Joseph Simonetti Journal: Fed Pract Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Hadley Woodruff Reid; Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell; Christina Makarushka; Katherine Dayllan Melgar Vega; Megan Huchko; Jose Jeronimo; Lavanya Vasudevan Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Wendy F Cohn; Chelsea E Canan; Sarah Knight; Ava Lena Waldman; Rebecca Dillingham; Karen Ingersoll; Julie Schexnayder; Tabor E Flickinger Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Mohamed A Osman; Kara Schick-Makaroff; Stephanie Thompson; Liza Bialy; Robin Featherstone; Julia Kurzawa; Deenaz Zaidi; Ikechi Okpechi; Syed Habib; Soroush Shojai; Kailash Jindal; Branko Braam; Erin Keely; Clare Liddy; Braden Manns; Marcello Tonelli; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Scott Klarenbach; Aminu K Bello Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2019-09-13