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.

Background A growing literature has demonstrated the ability of user-centered design to make clinical decision support systems more effective and easier to use. However, studies of user-centered design have rarely examined more than a handful of sites at a time, and have frequently neglected the implementation climate and organizational resources that influence clinical decision support. The inclusion of such factors was identified by a systematic review as “the most important improvement that can be made in health IT evaluations.” Objectives (1) Identify the prevalence of four user-centered design practices at United States Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics and assess the perceived utility of clinical decision support at those clinics; (2) Evaluate the association between those user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support. Methods We analyzed clinic-level survey data collected in 2006–2007 from 170 VA primary care clinics. We examined four user-centered design practices: 1) pilot testing, 2) provider satisfaction assessment, 3) formal usability assessment, and 4) analysis of impact on performance improvement. We used a regression model to evaluate the association between user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support, while accounting for other important factors at those clinics, including implementation climate, available resources, and structural characteristics. We also examined associations separately at community-based clinics and at hospital-based clinics. Results User-centered design practices for clinical decision support varied across clinics: 74% conducted pilot testing, 62% conducted provider satisfaction assessment, 36% conducted a formal usability assessment, and 79% conducted an analysis of impact on performance improvement. Overall perceived utility of clinical decision support was high, with a mean rating of 4.17 (+/− .67) out of 5 on a composite measure. “Analysis of impact on performance improvement” was the only user-centered design practice significantly associated with perceived utility of clinical decision support, b =.47 (p<.001). This association was present in hospital-based clinics, b =.34 (p<.05), but was stronger at community-based clinics, b =.61 (p<.001). Conclusions Our findings are highly supportive of the practice of analyzing the impact of clinical decision support on performance metrics. This was the most common user-centered design practice in our study, and was the practice associated with higher perceived utility of clinical decision support. This practice may be particularly helpful at community-based clinics, which are typically less connected to VA medical center resources.