Geoffrey D Barnes1,2,3, Jennifer Acosta4, Jacob E Kurlander5,6,7, Anne E Sales5,6,8. 1. Frankel Cardiovascular Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. gbarnes@umich.edu. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. gbarnes@umich.edu. 3. Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. gbarnes@umich.edu. 4. Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health Care System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 7. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 8. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based practices often requires tailoring implementation strategies to local contextual factors, including available resources, expertise, and cultural norms. Using an exemplar case, we describe how health systems engineering methods can be used to understand system-level variation that must be accounted for prior to broad implementation. METHODS: Within the context of a single-center quality improvement activity, a multi-disciplinary stakeholder team used health systems engineering methods to describe how pre-endoscopy antithrombotic management was executed, and implemented a redesigned process to improve clinical care. The research team then conducted multiple stakeholder focus groups at four different health-care systems to describe and compare current processes for pre-endoscopy antithrombotic medication management. Detailed work flow maps for each health-care system were developed, analyzed, and integrated to develop an overarching current work flow map, identify key process steps, and describe areas of process variation. RESULTS: Five key process steps were identified across the four health systems: (1) place an endoscopy order, (2) screen for antithrombotic use, (3) coordinate medication management, (4) instruct the patient, and (5) confirm appropriate medication management before procedure. Across health systems, we found a high degree of variation in each step (e.g., who performed, use of technology, systematic vs. ad hoc process). This variation was influenced by two key system-level contextual factors: (1) degree of health system integration and (2) role and training level of available staff. These key steps, areas of variation, and contextual factors were integrated into an assessment tool designed to facilitate tailoring of a future implementation and dissemination strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Tools from health systems engineering can be used to identify key work flow process steps, variations in how those steps are executed, and influential contextual factors. This process and the associated assessment tool may facilitate broader implementation tailoring.
BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based practices often requires tailoring implementation strategies to local contextual factors, including available resources, expertise, and cultural norms. Using an exemplar case, we describe how health systems engineering methods can be used to understand system-level variation that must be accounted for prior to broad implementation. METHODS: Within the context of a single-center quality improvement activity, a multi-disciplinary stakeholder team used health systems engineering methods to describe how pre-endoscopy antithrombotic management was executed, and implemented a redesigned process to improve clinical care. The research team then conducted multiple stakeholder focus groups at four different health-care systems to describe and compare current processes for pre-endoscopy antithrombotic medication management. Detailed work flow maps for each health-care system were developed, analyzed, and integrated to develop an overarching current work flow map, identify key process steps, and describe areas of process variation. RESULTS: Five key process steps were identified across the four health systems: (1) place an endoscopy order, (2) screen for antithrombotic use, (3) coordinate medication management, (4) instruct the patient, and (5) confirm appropriate medication management before procedure. Across health systems, we found a high degree of variation in each step (e.g., who performed, use of technology, systematic vs. ad hoc process). This variation was influenced by two key system-level contextual factors: (1) degree of health system integration and (2) role and training level of available staff. These key steps, areas of variation, and contextual factors were integrated into an assessment tool designed to facilitate tailoring of a future implementation and dissemination strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Tools from health systems engineering can be used to identify key work flow process steps, variations in how those steps are executed, and influential contextual factors. This process and the associated assessment tool may facilitate broader implementation tailoring.
Entities:
Keywords:
adaptation; dissemination; health systems engineering; implementation; quality improvement
Authors: Geoffrey D Barnes; Elizabeth Spranger; Emily Sippola; Elizabeth Renner; Allison Ruff; Anne E Sales; Jacob E Kurlander Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-02-05
Authors: Geoffrey D Barnes; Jacob Kurlander; Brian Haymart; Scott Kaatz; Sameer Saini; James B Froehlich Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Eva Kovacs; Ralf Strobl; Amanda Phillips; Anna-Janina Stephan; Martin Müller; Jochen Gensichen; Eva Grill Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Byron J Powell; Rinad S Beidas; Cara C Lewis; Gregory A Aarons; J Curtis McMillen; Enola K Proctor; David S Mandell Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Matthew J Chinman; Laura J Damschroder; Jeffrey L Smith; Monica M Matthieu; Enola K Proctor; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Ali Ben Charif; Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun; Annie LeBlanc; Léa Langlois; Luke Wolfenden; Sze Lin Yoong; Christopher M Williams; Roxanne Lépine; France Légaré Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Alexandra T Strauss; Jennifer Yeh; Diego A Martinez; Gayane Yenokyan; Janet Yoder; Ravi Nehra; Tara Feller; Kathy Bull-Henry; Ellen Stein; Lawrence C H Hsu; Haitham Al-Grain; Candice Zabko; Christopher Fain Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Henry Han; Grace Chung; Emily Sippola; Wilson Chen; Spencer Morgan; Elizabeth Renner; Allison Ruff; Anne Sales; Jacob Kurlander; Geoffrey D Barnes Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2021-07-16