Proactively tailoring implementation: the case of shared decision-making for lung cancer screening across the VA New England Healthcare Network

被引:1
作者
Herbst A.N. [1 ]
McCullough M.B. [1 ,2 ]
Wiener R.S. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Barker A.M. [1 ]
Maguire E.M. [1 ]
Fix G.M. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, 200 Springs Road (152), Bedford, 01730, MA
[2] Department of Public Health, Zuckerberg School of Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA
[3] National Center for Lung Cancer Screening, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC
[4] The Pulmonary Center, Boston University Chobanian &, Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA
[5] General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA
关键词
Ethnographic Research Methods; Implementation Modifications; Implementation Science; Lung Cancer Screening; Patient-centered Care; Shared Decision-Making;
D O I
10.1186/s12913-023-10245-9
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Shared Decision-Making to discuss how the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening align with patient values is required by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and recommended by multiple organizations. Barriers at organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels prevent SDM from meeting quality standards in routine practice. We developed an implementation plan, using the socio-ecological model, for Shared Decision-Making for lung cancer screening for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. Because understanding the local context is critical to implementation success, we sought to proactively tailor our original implementation plan, to address barriers to achieving guideline-concordant lung cancer screening. Methods: We conducted a formative evaluation using an ethnographic approach to proactively identify barriers to Shared Decision-Making and tailor our implementation plan. Data consisted of qualitative interviews with leadership and clinicians from seven VA New England medical centers, regional meeting notes, and Shared Decision-Making scripts and documents used by providers. Tailoring was guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS). Results: We tailored the original implementation plan to address barriers we identified at the organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels. Overall, we removed two implementation strategies, added five strategies, and modified the content of two strategies. For example, at the clinician level, we learned that past personal and clinical experiences predisposed clinicians to focus on the benefits of lung cancer screening. To address this barrier, we modified the content of our original implementation strategy Make Training Dynamic to prompt providers to self-reflect about their screening beliefs and values, encouraging them to discuss both the benefits and potential harms of lung cancer screening. Conclusions: Formative evaluations can be used to proactively tailor implementation strategies to fit local contexts. We tailored our implementation plan to address unique barriers we identified, with the goal of improving implementation success. The FRAME-IS aided our team in thoughtfully addressing and modifying our original implementation plan. Others seeking to maximize the effectiveness of complex interventions may consider using a similar approach. © 2023, This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 59 条
  • [1] Key Statistics for Lung Cancer: American Cancer Society, (2021)
  • [2] Guidance on Clinical Preventive Services: Lung Cancer Screening: VHA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (NCP)
  • [3] de Koning H.J., van der Aalst C.M., de Jong P.A., Scholten E.T., Nackaerts K., Heuvelmans M.A., Et al., Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial, N Engl J Med, 382, 6, pp. 503-513, (2020)
  • [4] Aberle D.R., Adams A.M., Berg C.D., Black W.C., Clapp J.D., Fagerstrom R.M., Et al., Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening, N Engl J Med, 365, 5, pp. 395-409, (2011)
  • [5] Moyer V.A., On behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement, Ann Intern Med, 160, 5, pp. 330-338, (2014)
  • [6] Humphrey L.L., Deffebach M., Pappas M., Baumann C., Artis K., Mitchell J.P., Et al., Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation, Ann Intern Med, 159, 6, pp. 411-420, (2013)
  • [7] Mazzone P., Powell C.A., Arenberg D., Bach P., Detterbeck F., Gould M.K., Et al., Components necessary for high-quality lung cancer screening: American College of Chest Physicians and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement, Chest, 147, 2, pp. 295-303, (2015)
  • [8] Mazzone P.J., Silvestri G.A., Patel S., Kanne J.P., Kinsinger L.S., Wiener R.S., Et al., Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST guideline and expert panel report, Chest, 153, 4, pp. 954-985, (2018)
  • [9] Wender R., Fontham E.T., Barrera E., Colditz G.A., Church T.R., Ettinger D.S., Et al., American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines, CA Cancer J Clin, 63, 2, pp. 107-117, (2013)
  • [10] Wood D.E., Kazerooni E., Baum S.L., Dransfield M.T., Eapen G.A., Ettinger D.S., Lung cancer screening, version 1.2015: Featured updates to the NCCN guidelines, J Natl Compr Cancer Netw, 13, 1, pp. 23-34, (2015)