Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title
Lin JL, Huber B, Amir O, Gehrmann S, Ramirez KS, Ochoa KM, Asch SM, Gajos KZ, Grosz BJ, Sanders LM. Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Family-Centered Technology in Complex Care: Feasibility Study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2022 Aug 23; 24(8):e30902.
BACKGROUND: Care coordination is challenging but crucial for children with medical complexity (CMC). Technology-based solutions are increasingly prevalent but little is known about how to successfully deploy them in the care of CMC. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of GoalKeeper (GK), an internet-based system for eliciting and monitoring family-centered goals for CMC, and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of GK as part of a clinical trial of GK in ambulatory clinics at a children's hospital (NCT03620071). The study was conducted in 3 phases: preimplementation, implementation (trial), and postimplementation. For the trial, we recruited providers at participating clinics and English-speaking parents of CMC < 12 years of age with home internet access. All participants used GK during an initial clinic visit and for 3 months after. We conducted preimplementation focus groups and postimplementation semistructured exit interviews using the CFIR interview guide. Participant exit surveys assessed GK feasibility and acceptability on a 5-point Likert scale. For each interview, 3 independent coders used content analysis and serial coding reviews based on the CFIR qualitative analytic plan and assigned quantitative ratings to each CFIR construct (-2 strong barrier to +2 strong facilitator). RESULTS: Preimplementation focus groups included 2 parents (1 male participant and 1 female participant) and 3 providers (1 in complex care, 1 in clinical informatics, and 1 in neurology). From focus groups, we developed 3 implementation strategies: education (parents: 5-minute demo; providers: 30-minute tutorial and 5-minute video on use in a clinic visit; both: instructional manual), tech support (in-person, virtual), and automated email reminders for parents. For implementation (April 1, 2019, to December 21, 2020), we enrolled 11 providers (7 female participants, 5 in complex care) and 35 parents (mean age 38.3, SD 7.8 years; n = 28, 80% female; n = 17, 49% Caucasian; n = 16, 46% Hispanic; and n = 30, 86% at least some college). One parent-provider pair did not use GK in the clinic visit, and few used GK after the visit. In 18 parent and 9 provider exit interviews, the key facilitators were shared goal setting, GK's internet accessibility and email reminders (parents), and GK's ability to set long-term goals and use at the end of visits (providers). A key barrier was GK's lack of integration into the electronic health record or patient portal. Most parents (13/19) and providers (6/9) would recommend GK to their peers. CONCLUSIONS: Family-centered technologies like GK are feasible and acceptable for the care of CMC, but sustained use depends on integration into electronic health records. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03620071; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03620071.