Barwise, Amelia

Abstract Background Little is known about the strategies used by critical care leaders to implement new practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior studies have identified implementation factors, such as structured communication mechanisms and collaborative leadership styles, that facilitate implementation of new clinical practices. However, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates. Methods We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to assess implementation factors that were associated with COVID-19 mortality rates across diverse critical care settings. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed using the CFIR to rate the influence of constructs on implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low versus high mortality rates. Results 31 clinical leaders were interviewed across 17 hospitals. Of the 13 relevant CFIR constructs, three constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Seven constructs did not distinguish between low versus high mortality hospitals based on qualitative or quantitative comparison of CFIR construct ratings. Conclusions Application of the CFIR to identify and quantify constructs across critical care settings enabled us to characterize implementation barriers and facilitators at the practice, interpersonal, and provider level that were associated with COVID-19 mortality rates. Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that clinical care implementation efforts should focus on avoiding trial-and-error approaches to adopting new practices, while promoting collaborative and engaged leadership styles.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected historically marginalized populations and their access to resources and healthcare. In times of crisis, authentic community engagement is more important than ever. This study was Phase 1 of a larger 3-phase study to conduct timely community-engaged research with community members to understand the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on historically underserved communities. The objective of this work was to conduct key informant (KI) interviews (1) to understand community organizations perspectives about the role that large academic health centers play as they interface with community organizations to support their work, (2) to leverage KI’s expertise to identify needs and assets within the community, and (3) to inform both Phase 2 (focus group qualitative research) and Phase 3 (survey) of the broader study. Methods: A total of 24 key informants were identified through purposeful sampling and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted across 4 states using video conferencing. Results: Barriers to access and lack of transparency were highlighted as major issues requiring reform—in particular, aggressive billing practices and insurance barriers exacerbated local distrust of medical institutions. KIs recognized the health institution’s support for testing and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted other significant gaps in care, especially regarding mental health support. Although communication with the health institution was consistent for some KIs, others experienced unsustained communication efforts that hindered cooperation and relationship building. Conclusions: Leaders in the community as key stakeholders can provide unique insights into the challenges and potential solutions required to promote health equity, and foster understanding between local communities and healthcare institutions.

Diagnostic error or delay (DEOD) is common in the acute care setting and results in poor patient outcomes. Many factors contribute to DEOD, but little is known about how contributors may differ across acute care areas and professional roles. As part of a sequential exploratory mixed methods research study, we surveyed acute care clinical stakeholders about the frequency with which different factors contribute to DEOD. Survey respondents could also propose solutions in open text fields. N = 220 clinical stakeholders completed the survey. Care Team Interactions, Systems and Process, Patient, Provider, and Cognitive factors were perceived to contribute to DEOD with similar frequency. Organization and Infrastructure factors were perceived to contribute to DEOD significantly less often. Responses did not vary across acute care setting. Physicians perceived Cognitive factors to contribute to DEOD more frequently compared to those in other roles. Commonly proposed solutions included: technological solutions, organization level fixes, ensuring staff know and are encouraged to work to the full scope of their role, and cultivating a culture of collaboration and respect. Multiple factors contribute to DEOD with similar frequency across acute care areas, suggesting the need for a multi-pronged approach that can be applied across acute care areas.