Engaging multilevel stakeholders in an implementation trial of evidence-based quality improvement in VA women’s health primary care
- 205 Downloads
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has undertaken primary care transformation based on patient-centered medical home (PCMH) tenets. VHA PCMH models are designed for the predominantly male Veteran population, and require tailoring to meet women Veterans’ needs. We used evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI), a stakeholder-driven implementation strategy, in a cluster randomized controlled trial across 12 sites (eight EBQI, four control) that are members of a Practice-Based Research Network. EBQI involves engaging multilevel, inter-professional leaders and staff as stakeholders in reviewing evidence and setting QI priorities. The goal of this analysis was to examine processes of engaging stakeholders in early implementation of EBQI to tailor VHA’s medical home for women. Four inter-professional regional stakeholder planning meetings were conducted; these meetings engaged stakeholders by providing regional data about gender disparities in Veterans’ care experiences. Subsequent to each meeting, qualitative interviews were conducted with 87 key stakeholders (leaders and staff). Stakeholders were asked to describe QI efforts and the use of data to change aspects of care, including women’s health care. Interview transcripts were summarized and coded using a hybrid deductive/inductive analytic approach. The presentation of regional-level data about gender disparities resulted in heightened awareness and stakeholder buy-in and decision-making related to women’s health-focused QI. Interviews revealed that stakeholders were familiar with QI, with regional and facility leaders aware of inter-disciplinary committees and efforts to foster organizational change, including PCMH transformation. These efforts did not typically focus on women’s health, though some informal efforts had been undertaken. Barriers to engaging in QI included lack of communication across clinical service lines, fluidity in staffing, and lack of protected time. Inter-professional, multilevel stakeholders need to be engaged in implementation early, with data and discussion that convey the importance and relevance of a new initiative. Stakeholder perspectives on institutional norms (e.g., gender norms) and readiness for population-specific QI are useful drivers of clinical initiatives designed to transform care for clinical subpopulations.
KeywordsStakeholder engagement Implementation Evidence-based quality improvement women’s health Primary care Veterans health administration
We would like to thank Dr. Susan Frayne for her WH-PBRN leadership and Ms. Diane Carney for her management of the WH-PBRN; Ms. Selene Mak for data analysis support; Dr. Amy Cohen for editorial input; and Ms. Kristina Oishi and Ms. Anneka Oishi for logistics support. We would also like to thank Ms. Angela Cohen for her overall management of the Women’s Health CREATE, and our Executive Steering Committee members and Women Veteran Council members for their valuable contributions to this project.
Compliance with ethical standards
Study funding sources
Support for this research was provided by VA HSR&D Service, Veterans Health Administration through the CREATE initiative (CRE 12-026) and the VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy (CIN 13-417). Development and implementation of the EBQI intervention is being supported through annual Memoranda of Understanding with funding from VA Women’s Health Services (WHS) in the Office of Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration. Dr. Yano’s effort was funded by a VA HSR&D Senior Research Career Scientist Award (Project #RCS 05-195).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Reporting and control of data
The findings reported have not been previously published and the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere. The data has not been previously reported. The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested. The views expressed within this study are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Government.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study protocol has been approved by the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System IRB-B Subcommittee (IRB Chair, Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD) (approval number 2013-040589). Individual study components, including key stakeholder interviews, were reviewed and approved by IRB-B as serial project modifications to an umbrella IRB application under the study title. For each study component, we obtained IRB approval for waivers of documentation of consent for all data collections. Consent was provided verbally and recorded in the case of interviews. The VA Central IRB (Washington DC) also determined that the participating VA medical centers (n = 12) were not engaged in research and that the intervention (or implementation strategy, evidence-based quality improvement [EBQI]) was QI. Documentation of IRB approval (and in VA settings, Research and Development Committee approval as well) and Central IRB determination of non-research for the implementation strategy are available on request. The UCLA Institutional Review Board also reviewed and approved the key stakeholder interview component. No individual person’s data in any form are or will be included in this or subsequent manuscripts. Only aggregated data will be reported. For key stakeholder data, non-attributed or identifiable quotes may be reported in addition to thematic summaries.
Statement on welfare of animals
No animals are or will be involved in this study protocol. Similarly, use of animal or human data or tissue is not applicable to this study protocol.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 1.National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. Projected Veteran population 2013 to 2043. October 13, 2014. Available at: http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/quickfacts/population_slideshow.pdf. Accessibility verified December 31, 2016.
- 5.O’Toole, T. P., Johnson, E. E., Aiello, R., Kane, V., & Pape, L. (2016). Tailoring care to vulnerable populations by incorporating social determinants of health: the Veterans Health Administration’s “Homeless Patient Aligned Care Team” program. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13, E44.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. Profile of women Veterans: 2015. December, 2016. Available at: https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Women_Veterans_Profile_12_22_2016.pdf. Accessibility verified December 31, 2016.
- 10.Wilson LC. The prevalence of military sexual trauma: a meta-analysis. Trauma Viol Abuse, first published date: December 16, 2016.Google Scholar
- 12.Chuang E, Brunner J, Mak S, et al. Challenges with implementing a patient-centered medical home model for women Veterans. Women’s Health Issues, 2017.Google Scholar
- 14.Kirchner, J. E., Parker, L. E., Bonner, L. M., Fickel, J. J., Yano, E. M., & Ritchie, M. J. (2012). Roles of managers, frontline staff and local champions, in implementing quality improvement: stakeholders’ perspectives. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18, 63–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Yano, E. M., Green, L. W., Glanz, K., et al. (2012). Implementation and spread of interventions into the multilevel context of routine practice and policy: implications for the cancer care continuum. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 2012, 86–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Rubenstein, L. V., Danz, M. S., Crain, A. L., Glasgow, R. E., Whitebird, R. R., & Solberg, L. I. (2014). Assessing organizational readiness for depression care quality improvement: relative commitment and implementation capability. Implementation Science, 9, 173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 31.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 33.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 37.Mendel, P., Ngo, V. K., Dixon, E., et al. (2011). Partnered evaluation of a community engagement intervention: use of a kickoff conference in a randomized trial for depression care improvement in underserved communities. Ethnicity & Disease, 21, S1 78-88.Google Scholar