Implementation for Sustained Impact in Teleophthalmology (I-SITE): applying the NIATx Model for tailored implementation of diabetic retinopathy screening in primary care

Alejandra Torres Diaz, Loren J Lock, Todd D Molfenter, Jane E Mahoney, Deanne Boss, Timothy D Bjelland, Yao Liu, Alejandra Torres Diaz, Loren J Lock, Todd D Molfenter, Jane E Mahoney, Deanne Boss, Timothy D Bjelland, Yao Liu

Abstract

Background: Teleophthalmology provides evidence-based, telehealth diabetic retinopathy screening that is underused even when readily available in primary care clinics. There is an urgent need to increase teleophthalmology use in the US primary care clinics. In this study, we describe the development of a tailored teleophthalmology implementation program and report outcomes related to primary care provider (PCP) adoption.

Methods: We applied the 5 principles and 10 steps of the NIATx healthcare process improvement model to develop and test I-SITE (Implementation for Sustained Impact in Teleophthalmology) in a rural, the US multi-payer health system. This implementation program allows patients and clinical stakeholders to systematically tailor teleophthalmology implementation to their local context. We aligned I-SITE components and implementation strategies to an updated ERIC (Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change) framework. We compared teleophthalmology adoption between PCPs who did or did not participate in various components of I-SITE. We surveyed PCPs and clinical staff to identify the strategies they believed to have the highest impact on teleophthalmology use.

Results: To test I-SITE, we initiated a year-long series of 14 meetings with clinical stakeholders (n=22) and met quarterly with patient stakeholders (n=9) in 2017. Clinical and patient stakeholder groups had 90.9% and 88.9% participant retention at 1 year, respectively. The increase in teleophthalmology use was greater among PCPs participating in the I-SITE implementation team than among other PCPs (p < 0.006). The proportion of all PCPs who used the implementation strategy of electing diabetic eye screening for their annual performance-based financial incentive increased from 0% (n=0) at baseline to 56% (n=14) following I-SITE implementation (p = 0.004). PCPs and clinical staff reported the following implementation strategies as having the highest impact on teleophthalmology use: reminders to ask patients about diabetic eye screening during clinic visits, improving electronic health record (EHR) documentation, and patient outreach.

Conclusions: We applied the NIATx Model to develop and test a teleophthalmology implementation program for tailored integration into primary care clinics. The NIATx Model provides a systematic approach to engaging key stakeholders for tailoring implementation of evidence-based telehealth interventions into their local context.

Keywords: Implementation development; Implementation intervention; NIATx Model; Primary care; Retinal screening; Rural; Stakeholder engagement; Systems engineering; Tailored implementation; Telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

None to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Implementation for Sustained Impact in Teleophthalmology (I-SITE) and patient stakeholder meeting goals and participants

References

    1. Hale NL, Bennett KJ, Probst JC. Diabetes care and outcomes: disparities across rural America. J Community Health. 2010;35(4):365–374. doi: 10.1007/s10900-010-9259-0.
    1. Jani PD, Forbes L, Choudhury A, Preisser JS, Viera AJ, Garg S. Evaluation of Diabetic Retinal Screening and Factors for Ophthalmology Referral in a Telemedicine Network. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(7):706–714. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1150.
    1. Krishna S, Gillespie KN, McBride TM. Diabetes burden and access to preventive care in the rural United States. J Rural Health. 2010;26(1):3–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2009.00259.x.
    1. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Shiyanbola OO, Swearingen R, Carlson JN, Jacobson NA, Mahoney JE, Klein R, Bjelland TD, Smith MA. Factors influencing patient adherence with diabetic eye screening in rural communities: A qualitative study. Plos One. 2018;13(11):e0206742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206742.
    1. Scanlon PH. The English national screening programme for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. J Med Screen. 2008;15(1):1–4. doi: 10.1258/jms.2008.008015.
    1. Hussey P, Anderson GF. A comparison of single- and multi-payer health insurance systems and options for reform. Health Policy. 2003;66(3):215–228. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00050-2.
    1. Lynch MG, Maa AY. Diagnostic Time for Teleophthalmic Care. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(7):808–809. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1202.
    1. VA Telehealth Services: Fact Sheet. In: Affairs DoV, editor. Washington DC: Office of Public Affairs, Media Relations.
    1. Riordan F, Racine E, Phillip ET, Bradley C, Lorencatto F, Murphy M, Murphy A, Browne J, Smith SM, Kearney PM, McHugh SM. Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-00982-4.
    1. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. Methods to Improve the Selection and Tailoring of Implementation Strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–194. doi: 10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes statistics report: estimates of diabetes and its burden in the United States, 2014. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.
    1. Liew G, Michaelides M, Bunce C. A comparison of the causes of blindness certifications in England and Wales in working age adults (16-64 years), 1999-2000 with 2009-2010. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e004015. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004015.
    1. Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy. ETDRS report number 9. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(5 Suppl):766-85.
    1. American Diabetes Association. 11. Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(Suppl 1):S135–SS51. 10.2337/dc20-S011.
    1. Mansberger SL, Sheppler C, Barker G, Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Wooten K, Becker TM. Long-term Comparative Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Providing Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Examinations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(5):518–525. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.1.
    1. Bouskill K, Smith-Morris C, Bresnick G, Cuadros J, Pedersen ER. Blind spots in telemedicine: a qualitative study of staff workarounds to resolve gaps in diabetes management. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):617. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3427-9.
    1. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Swearingen R, Jacobson N, Carlson JN, Mahoney JE, Klein R, Bjelland TD, Smith MA. Identification of barriers, facilitators and system-based implementation strategies to increase teleophthalmology use for diabetic eye screening in a rural US primary care clinic: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e022594. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022594.
    1. Ramchandran RS, Yilmaz S, Greaux E, Dozier A. Patient perceived value of teleophthalmology in an urban, low income US population with diabetes. Plos One. 2020;15(1):e0225300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225300.
    1. Lawrenson JG, Graham-Rowe E, Lorencatto F, Rice S, Bunce C, Francis JJ, Burr JM, Aluko P, Vale L, Peto T, Presseau J, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM. What works to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening? An evidence synthesis and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22(29):1–160. doi: 10.3310/hta22290.
    1. Lee SJ, McCarty CA, Sicari C, Livingston PM, Harper CA, Taylor HR, et al. Recruitment methods for community-based screening for diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2000;7(3):209–218. doi: 10.1076/0928-6586(200009)731-VFT209.
    1. Hoffman KA, Ford JH, 2nd, Choi D, Gustafson DH, McCarty D. Replication and sustainability of improved access and retention within the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;98(1-2):63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.04.016.
    1. NIATx. The NIATx Model 2021. Available from: . [Accessed 20 Nov 2020]
    1. Liu Y, Carlson JN, Torres Diaz A, Lock LJ, Zupan NJ, Molfenter TD, et al. Sustaining Gains in Diabetic Eye Screening: Outcomes from a Stakeholder-Based Implementation Program for Teleophthalmology in Primary Care. Telemed J E Health. 2020. 10.1089/tmj.2020.0270.
    1. Perry CK, Damschroder LJ, Hemler JR, Woodson TT, Ono SS, Cohen DJ. Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0876-4.
    1. U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Juneau County, Wisconsin. Available from: . [Accessed 20 Nov 2020]
    1. Li HK, Horton M, Bursell SE, Cavallerano J, Zimmer-Galler I, Tennant M, Abramoff M, Chaum E, Debuc DC, Leonard-Martin T, Winchester M, American Telemedicine Association Diabetic Retinopathy Telehealth Practice Recommendations Working Group. Lawrence MG, Bauman W, Gardner WK, Hildebran L, Federman J. Telehealth practice recommendations for diabetic retinopathy, second edition. Telemed J E Health. 2011;17(10):814–837. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0075.
    1. Carter K, Edgar J, Glasser DB, McNett C, Repka MX, Vicchrilli S. Telehealth Retinal Codes 2019. Available from: . [cited 2020 November 20]
    1. Nominal Group Technique: CHESS/ NIATx; 2020. Available from: . [cited 2020 November 20]
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, Lamb SE, Dixon-Woods M, McCulloch P, Wyatt JC, Chan AW, Michie S. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348(mar07 3):g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.
    1. U.S. Census Bureau. ACS Income Data Tables. Available from: . [Accessed 20 Nov 2020].
    1. Morris NS, MacLean CD, Chew LD, Littenberg B. The Single Item Literacy Screener: Evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Family Practice. 2006;7(1).
    1. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.
    1. Pankow J, Willett J, Yang Y, Swan H, Dembo R, Burdon WM, Patterson Y, Pearson FS, Belenko S, Frisman LK. Evaluating Fidelity to a Modified NIATx Process Improvement Strategy for Improving HIV Services in Correctional Facilities. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2018;45(2):187–203. doi: 10.1007/s11414-017-9551-1.
    1. Cabassa LJ, Gomes AP, Meyreles Q, Capitelli L, Younge R, Dragatsi D, Alvarez J, Manrique Y, Lewis-Fernández R. Using the collaborative intervention planning framework to adapt a health-care manager intervention to a new population and provider group to improve the health of people with serious mental illness. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0178-9.
    1. Dickinson WP, Dickinson LM, Nutting PA, Emsermann CB, Tutt B, Crabtree BF, Fisher L, Harbrecht M, Gottsman A, West DR. Practice facilitation to improve diabetes care in primary care: a report from the EPIC randomized clinical trial. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(1):8–16. doi: 10.1370/afm.1591.
    1. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Sci. 1989;35(8):902–1028. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
    1. Rho MJ, Choi IY, Lee J. Predictive factors of telemedicine service acceptance and behavioral intention of physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(8):559–571. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.05.005.
    1. Levin-Scherz J, DeVita N, Timbie J. Impact of pay-for-performance contracts and network registry on diabetes and asthma HEDIS measures in an integrated delivery network. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(1 Suppl):14S–28S. doi: 10.1177/1077558705284057.
    1. Coleman K, Reiter KL, Fulwiler D. The impact of pay-for-performance on diabetes care in a large network of community health centers. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(4):966–983. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2007.0090.
    1. Scott A, Sivey P, Ait Ouakrim D, Willenberg L, Naccarella L, Furler J, et al. The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9:CD008451.
    1. Martin B, Jones J, Miller M, Johnson-Koenke R. Health Care Professionals’ Perceptions of Pay-for-Performance in Practice: A Qualitative Metasynthesis. Inquiry. 2020;57:46958020917491.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Yakovchenko V, Miech EJ, Chinman MJ, Chartier M, Gonzalez R, Kirchner JE, et al. Strategy Configurations Directly Linked to Higher Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Starts: An Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods. Med Care. 2020;58(5):e31–ee8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001319.
    1. Li J, Talaei-Khoei A, Seale H, Ray P, Macintyre CR. Health Care Provider Adoption of eHealth: Systematic Literature Review. Interact J Med Res. 2013;2(1):e7. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.2468.
    1. Babbie ER. Survey research methods. Second edition. ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.; 1990. xx, 395 pages p.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다