Background This protocol is based on home health care (HHC) best practice evidence showing the value of coupling timely post-acute care visits by registered nurses and early outpatient provider follow-up for sepsis survivors. We found that 30-day rehospitalization rates were 7 percentage points lower (a 41% relative reduction) when sepsis survivors received a HHC nursing visit within 2 days of hospital discharge, at least 1 more nursing visit the first week, and an outpatient provider follow-up visit within 7 days compared to those without timely follow-up. However, nationwide, only 28% of sepsis survivors who transitioned to HHC received this timely visit protocol. The opportunity exists for many more sepsis survivors to benefit from timely home care and outpatient services. This protocol aims to achieve this goal.  Methods Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, this Type 1 hybrid pragmatic study will test the effectiveness of the Improving Transitions and Outcomes of Sepsis Survivors (I-TRANSFER) intervention compared to usual care on 30-day rehospitalization and emergency department use among sepsis survivors receiving HHC. The study design includes a baseline period with no intervention, a six-month start-up period followed by a one-year intervention period in partnership with five dyads of acute and HHC sites. In addition to the usual care/control periods from the dyad sites, additional survivors from national data will serve as control observations for comparison, weighted to produce covariate balance. The hypotheses will be tested using generalized mixed models with covariates guided by the Andersen Behavioral Model of Health Services. We will produce insights and generalizable knowledge regarding the context, processes, strategies, and determinants of I-TRANSFER implementation. Discussion As the largest HHC study of its kind and the first to transform this novel evidence through implementation science, this study has the potential to produce new knowledge about the impact of timely attention in HHC to alleviate symptoms and support sepsis survivor’s recovery at home. If effective, the impact of this intervention could be widespread, improving the quality of life and health outcomes for a growing, vulnerable population of sepsis survivors. A national advisory group will assist with widespread results dissemination.

Background: Cirrhosis care and outcomes are improved with access to subspecialty gastroenterology and hepatology care. In qualitative interviews, we investigated clinicians’ perceptions of factors that optimize or impede cirrhosis care. Methods: We conducted 24 telephone interviews with subspecialty clinicians at 7 Veterans Affairs medical centers with high- and low-complexity services. Purposive sampling stratified Veterans Affairs medical centers on timely post-hospitalization follow-up, a quality measure. We asked open-ended questions about facilitators and barriers of care coordination, access to appointments, procedures, transplantation, management of complications, keeping up to date with medical knowledge, and telehealth use. Results: Key themes that facilitated care were structural: multidisciplinary teams, clinical dashboards, mechanisms for appointment tracking and reminders, and local or virtual access to transplant and liver cancer specialists through the “specialty care access network extension for community health care outcomes” program. Coordination and efficient communication between transplant and non-transplant specialists and between transplant and primary care facilitated timely care. Same-day access to laboratory, procedural, and clinical services is an indicator of high-quality care. Barriers included lack of on-site procedural services, clinician turnover, patient social needs related to transportation, costs, and patient forgetfulness due to HE. Telehealth enabled lower complexity sites to obtain recommendations for complex patient cases. Barriers to telehealth included lack of credit (eg, VA billing equivalent), inadequate staff, lack of audiovisual technology support, and patient and staff discomfort with technology. Telehealth was optimal for return visits, cases where physical examination was nonessential, and where distance and transportation precluded in-person care. Rapid telehealth uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic was a positive disruptor and facilitated use. Conclusions: We identify multi-level factors related to structure, staffing, technology, and care organization to optimize cirrhosis care delivery.