Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

VA Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website
HSRD Conference Logo



2019 HSR&D/QUERI National Conference Abstract

Printable View

4076 — Setting the Table for Active Engagement for Implementation among New QI Teams within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

Lead/Presenter: Teresa Damush,  COIN - Indianapolis
All Authors: Damush TM (Precision Monitoring for Quality QUERI Center/Center for Health and Information Communications, Indianapolis), Miech EJ, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M), QUERI Center/Center for Health and Information Communications (CHIC), Indianapolis; Rattray NA, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M) QUERI Center/Center for Health and Information Communications (CHIC), Indianapolis; Homoya B, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M) QUERI Center, Indianapolis; Myers L, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M) QUERI Center/Center for Health and Information Communications (CHIC), Indianapolis; Cheatham A, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M) QUERI Center, Indianapolis; Martin H, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M) QUERI Center, Indianapolis; Williams LW, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M) QUERI Center/Center for Health and Information Communications (CHIC), Indianapolis; Bravata DM, Precision Monitoring for Quality (PRIS-M) QUERI Center/Center for Health and Information Communications (CHIC), Indianapolis

Objectives:
A paucity of evidence exists regarding successful strategies that may be used to systematically among clinical teams to proceed from pre-implementation to active implementation. We sought to identify successful engagement of clinical front line staff to begin active implementation for process change within the local context.

Methods:
We compared and contrasted the levels of engagement utilized by program facilitators across 4 QI programs within the (VHA). The 4 QI programs encompassed 21 VHA medical centers and 168 clinical staff. Levels of engagement at the start of active implementation included: 1. Leadership engagement; 2. Medical Center Checklist completion; 3. Onsite demonstration of clinical innovation; and 4. A devoted onsite engagement meeting with local team and leadership supplemented with videoconferencing by the facilitating team, team goal setting and action planning. We employed mixed methods to evaluate including: % local team participation in active implementation; % local team developed and completed goals; and semi-structured interview data based upon the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to evaluate the inner settings, local medical centers within a healthcare system.

Results:
After beginning active implementation, Programs 1 and 2 had to invest more time into front line engagement due to low % participation. Program 3 had to modify its implementation model to centralize the delivery of the planned innovation given the limitations in % of local team participation. Program 4 achieved the greatest participation in active implementation where each of its teams created an action plan. Local teams from Project 4 attributed their implementation success to an all-day onsite facilitated engagement meeting which included description of the practice gap, audit and feedback, barriers identification, planning and goal setting; facilitation and team dynamics. CFIR inner setting domain concepts of networks and communications and tension for change were key for activation.

Implications:
It is critical to engage the local front line teams sufficiently beyond a single point of contact. One successful engagement strategy includes immersing front-line clinical staff and leadership representing key clinical services in a planning retreat to activate the team, and locally design an action implementation plan to move forward.

Impacts:
Planning retreats may be applied towards process changes involving multiple services and stakeholders.