Cassandra Leighton1,2, Beth Fields2,3, Juleen L Rodakowski4,5, Connie Feiler6, Mary Hawk7, Johanna E Bellon6, A Everette James1,2. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Health Policy Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Center for Health Equity and Research Promotion, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. UPMC Wolff Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed the Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act on April 20, 2016. We designed a study to explore early implementation at a large, integrated delivery financing system. Our goal was to assess the effects of system-level decisions on unit implementation and the incorporation of the CARE Act's three components into routine care delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multisite, ethnographic case study at three different hospitals' medical-surgical units. We conducted observations and semi-structured interview to understand the implementation process and the approach to caregiver identification, notification, and education. We used thematic analysis to code interviews and observations and linked findings to the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. RESULTS: Organizational context and electronic health record capability were instrumental to the CARE Act implementation and integration into workflow. The implementation team used a decentralized strategy and a variety of communication modes, relying on local hospital units to train staff and make the changes. We found that the system facilitated the CARE Act implementation by placing emphasis on the documentation and charting to demonstrate compliance with the legal requirements. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: General acute hospitals will be making or have made similar decisions on how to operationalize the regulatory components and demonstrate compliance with the CARE Act. This study can help to inform others as they design and improve their compliance and implementation strategies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed the Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act on April 20, 2016. We designed a study to explore early implementation at a large, integrated delivery financing system. Our goal was to assess the effects of system-level decisions on unit implementation and the incorporation of the CARE Act's three components into routine care delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multisite, ethnographic case study at three different hospitals' medical-surgical units. We conducted observations and semi-structured interview to understand the implementation process and the approach to caregiver identification, notification, and education. We used thematic analysis to code interviews and observations and linked findings to the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. RESULTS: Organizational context and electronic health record capability were instrumental to the CARE Act implementation and integration into workflow. The implementation team used a decentralized strategy and a variety of communication modes, relying on local hospital units to train staff and make the changes. We found that the system facilitated the CARE Act implementation by placing emphasis on the documentation and charting to demonstrate compliance with the legal requirements. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: General acute hospitals will be making or have made similar decisions on how to operationalize the regulatory components and demonstrate compliance with the CARE Act. This study can help to inform others as they design and improve their compliance and implementation strategies.
Authors: Kushal T Kadakia; Celynne A Balatbat; Albert L Siu; I Glenn Cohen; Consuelo H Wilkins; Victor J Dzau; Anaeze C Offodile 2nd Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Joan M Griffin; Brystana G Kaufman; Lauren Bangerter; Diane E Holland; Catherine E Vanderboom; Cory Ingram; Ellen M Wild; Ann Marie Dose; Carole Stiles; Virginia H Thompson Journal: J Aging Soc Policy Date: 2022-02-13
Authors: Joan M Griffin; Catherine Riffin; Lauren R Bangerter; Karen Schaepe; Rachel D Havyer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Yaguang Zheng; Bonnie Anton; Juleen Rodakowski; Stefanie C Altieri Dunn; Beth Fields; Jacob C Hodges; Heidi Donovan; Connie Feiler; Grant Martsolf; Andrew Bilderback; Susan C Martin; Dan Li; Alton Everette James Journal: JMIR Aging Date: 2022-06-21