Evaluating the implementation of a national disclosure policy for large-scale adverse events in an integrated health care system: identification of gaps and successes

Abstract

BackgroundMany healthcare organizations have developed disclosure policies for large-scale adverse events, including the Veterans Health Administration (VA). This study evaluated VA’s national large-scale disclosure policy and identifies gaps and successes in its implementation.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with leaders, hospital employees, and patients at nine sites to elicit their perceptions of recent large-scale adverse events notifications and the national disclosure policy. Data were coded using the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsWe conducted 97 interviews. Insights included how to handle the communication of large-scale disclosures through multiple levels of a large healthcare organization and manage ongoing communications about the event with employees. Of the 5 CFIR constructs and 26 sub-constructs assessed, seven were prominent in interviews. Leaders and employees specifically mentioned key problem areas involving 1) networks and communications during disclosure, 2) organizational culture, 3) engagement of external change agents during disclosure, and 4) a need for reflecting on and evaluating the policy implementation and disclosure itself. Patients shared 5) preferences for personal outreach by phone in place of the current use of certified letters. All interviewees discussed 6) issues with execution and 7) costs of the disclosure.ConclusionsCFIR analysis reveals key problem areas that need to be addresses during disclosure, including: timely communication patterns throughout the organization, establishing a supportive culture prior to implementation, using patient-approved, effective communications strategies during disclosures; providing follow-up support for employees and patients, and sharing lessons learned.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1903-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients at the centre after a health care incident: A scoping review of hospital strategies targeting communication and nonmaterial restoration

“…Nine included studies focused on open disclosure processes in hospitals and have been published between 2008 and 2019. 11,16,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Hospital implementation of national and regional policies…”

“…22,25 Open disclosure by means of this policy was mandatory and aimed at transparency, preserving patients' trust and providing patients with the possibility to do what is needed for their health. 25…”

Protocol for the Rhode Island CORD 3.0 Study: Adapting, Testing, and Packaging the JOIN for ME Family-Based Childhood Obesity Program in Low-Income Communities

“…To ''design for dissemination'' from the beginning, the project is also informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a widely used approach in policy and program implementation. [71][72][73] The five major domains in CFIR, including 39 subconstructs can identify both barriers and facilitators at multiple levels of implementation: (1) characteristics of the intervention, (2) the inner setting of an organization, (3) the outer setting, (4) characteristics of individuals involved, and (5) the process of implementation. For example, one subconstruct, ''design and quality of packaging'' of all intervention materials (e.g., curriculum and training materials), part of the characteristics of the intervention or innovation, is often critical for future dissemination and implementation of an intervention.…”

“…For example, one subconstruct, ''design and quality of packaging'' of all intervention materials (e.g., curriculum and training materials), part of the characteristics of the intervention or innovation, is often critical for future dissemination and implementation of an intervention. 73 Another example is that JOIN for ME implementation with participants from one housing setting or FQHC may depend on the inner setting of the organization, including leadership views of the relative priority of JOIN for ME.…”

Estimating Downstream Budget Impacts in Implementation Research

“…Implementation scientists are focused on trying to reduce these failures through greater use of evidence-based care. 2,3 It is often assumed that health care systems can afford to implement these improvement efforts-or that the program will pay for itself through savings from avoided waste-but budgetary pressures and uncertainty surrounding implementation costs can create a challenge for decision makers. 4 Some interventions may be supported by evidence indicating their cost-effectiveness.…”