Rogal Shari S, Yakovchenko Vera, Waltz Thomas J, Powell Byron J, Kirchner JoAnn E, Proctor Enola K, Gonzalez Rachel, Park Angela, Ross David, Morgan Timothy R, Chartier Maggie, Chinman Matthew J
Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA.
Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Implement Sci. 2017 May 11;12(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0588-6.
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common and highly morbid illness. New medications that have much higher cure rates have become the new evidence-based practice in the field. Understanding the implementation of these new medications nationally provides an opportunity to advance the understanding of the role of implementation strategies in clinical outcomes on a large scale. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study defined discrete implementation strategies and clustered these strategies into groups. The present evaluation assessed the use of these strategies and clusters in the context of HCV treatment across the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, the largest provider of HCV care nationally.
A 73-item survey was developed and sent to all VA sites treating HCV via electronic survey, to assess whether or not a site used each ERIC-defined implementation strategy related to employing the new HCV medication in 2014. VA national data regarding the number of Veterans starting on the new HCV medications at each site were collected. The associations between treatment starts and number and type of implementation strategies were assessed.
A total of 80 (62%) sites responded. Respondents endorsed an average of 25 ± 14 strategies. The number of treatment starts was positively correlated with the total number of strategies endorsed (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). Quartile of treatment starts was significantly associated with the number of strategies endorsed (p < 0.01), with the top quartile endorsing a median of 33 strategies, compared to 15 strategies in the lowest quartile. There were significant differences in the types of strategies endorsed by sites in the highest and lowest quartiles of treatment starts. Four of the 10 top strategies for sites in the top quartile had significant correlations with treatment starts compared to only 1 of the 10 top strategies in the bottom quartile sites. Overall, only 3 of the top 15 most frequently used strategies were associated with treatment.
These results suggest that sites that used a greater number of implementation strategies were able to deliver more evidence-based treatment in HCV. The current assessment also demonstrates the feasibility of electronic self-reporting to evaluate ERIC strategies on a large scale. These results provide initial evidence for the clinical relevance of the ERIC strategies in a real-world implementation setting on a large scale. This is an initial step in identifying which strategies are associated with the uptake of evidence-based practices in nationwide healthcare systems.
丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)是一种常见且致病率很高的疾病。治愈率高得多的新型药物已成为该领域新的循证实践。了解这些新型药物在全国范围内的应用情况,为大规模深入理解实施策略在临床结局中的作用提供了契机。实施变革专家建议(ERIC)研究定义了离散的实施策略,并将这些策略进行了分组。本评估在美国退伍军人事务部(VA)下属的退伍军人健康管理局(全国最大的HCV护理提供者)的HCV治疗背景下,评估了这些策略及分组的使用情况。
设计了一项包含73个条目的调查问卷,并通过电子调查发送给所有治疗HCV的VA机构,以评估各机构在2014年是否采用了每项与使用新型HCV药物相关的ERIC定义的实施策略。收集了VA关于每个机构开始使用新型HCV药物的退伍军人数量的全国数据。评估了治疗启动数量与实施策略的数量及类型之间的关联。
共有80个(62%)机构做出回应。受访者平均认可25±14项策略。治疗启动数量与认可的策略总数呈正相关(r = 0.43,p < 0.001)。治疗启动四分位数与认可的策略数量显著相关(p < 0.01),最高四分位数认可的策略中位数为33项,而最低四分位数为15项。治疗启动最高和最低四分位数的机构认可的策略类型存在显著差异。最高四分位数机构的10项顶级策略中有4项与治疗启动有显著相关性,而最低四分位数机构的10项顶级策略中只有1项与治疗启动有显著相关性。总体而言,15项最常用策略中只有3项与治疗相关。
这些结果表明,采用更多实施策略的机构能够在HCV治疗中提供更多循证治疗。当前评估还证明了通过电子自我报告大规模评估ERIC策略的可行性。这些结果为ERIC策略在大规模实际应用环境中的临床相关性提供了初步证据。这是确定哪些策略与全国医疗系统中循证实践的采用相关的第一步。