4.0 Article

Measuring Implementation Strategy Fidelity in HealthyHearts NYC: A Complex Intervention Using Practice Facilitation in Primary Care

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL QUALITY
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 270-276

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1177/1062860620959450

Keywords

practice facilitation; implementation strategy; fidelity

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [1R18HS023922]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the fidelity of practice facilitation in improving the adoption of cardiovascular disease evidence-based guidelines in primary care practices. Results showed that almost all practices received at least the required number of PF visits, with facilitators spending an average of 26.3 hours per site. Most practices completed all Task List items, were educated on Chronic Care Model strategies, and received full coverage.
Few studies have assessed the fidelity of practice facilitation (PF) as an implementation strategy, and none have used an a priori definition or conceptual framework of fidelity to guide fidelity assessment. The authors adapted the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity to guide fidelity assessment in Healthy Hearts NYC, an intervention that used PF to improve adoption of cardiovascular disease evidence-based guidelines in primary care practices. Data from a web-based tracking system of 257 practices measured fidelity using 4 categories: frequency, duration, content, and coverage. Almost all (94.2%) practices received at least the required 13 PF visits. Facilitators spent on average 26.3 hours at each site. Most practices (95.7%) completed all Task List items, and 71.2% were educated on all Chronic Care Model strategies. The majority (65.8%) received full coverage. This study provides a model that practice managers and implementers can use to evaluate fidelity of PF, and potentially other implementation strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available