Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: Implementation facilitation is an effective strategy that increases uptake of behavioral health interventions. Facilitation is grounded in partnerships with leadership and clinical stakeholders. Researchers have documented some negative consequences of facilitation-time, financial, and opportunity costs. Clinical leaders often agree to facilitation with the promise of increased implementation of an intervention. This study examined whether unintended positive consequences of facilitation might offset known costs. METHODS: This study was part of a stepped-wedge, hybrid type 2, pragmatic trial that used implementation facilitation to implement primary care mental health integration (PCMHI) via telehealth technology in six satellite Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinics. Two facilitators provided facilitation for at least 6 months. This study included a focused analysis of an emerging phenomenon captured through weekly debriefing interviews with facilitators: unintended positive consequences of implementation facilitation, termed "lagniappes" here. A rapid content analysis was conducted to identify and categorize these consequences. RESULTS: The authors documented unintended positive consequences of the facilitation across the six VHA sites and categorized them into three clinically relevant domains: supporting PCMHI outreach at other clinics not in the original catchment area (e.g., providing tools to other sites), strengthening patient access (e.g., resolving unnecessary patient travel), and improving or modifying work processes (e.g., clarifying suicide assessment protocols). The positive consequences benefited sites and strengthened ongoing partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Documenting unintended positive consequences of implementation facilitation may increase leadership engagement. Facilitators should consider leveraging unintended positive consequences as advantages for the site that may add efficiency to facility processes and workflows.

Background: Opioid use and overdose are escalating in the United States. Primary care providers are in a strategic position to assess patients for medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Objectives: To describe the implementation of MAT in an integrated primary care residency clinic and assess provider comfort levels with evaluating patients for high-risk opioid use, conduct crucial conversations about MAT treatment options and referral to MAT for evaluation and treatment. Methods: As part of a Primary Care Training and Enhancement grant through Health Resources and Services Administration, we used an implementation process to allow for optimal clinic flow. The process included assessment of patient populations, identifying a provider champion, organizing multidisciplinary team, engaging a practice facilitator, designing clinic model and infrastructure, creating the electronic health record order sets along with provider and staff training. Providers responded to brief questions to evaluate comfort levels in 3 domains: identifying high-risk opioid use, conducting crucial conversations about treatment options and referral to MAT for evaluation and treatment. Discussion: Incorporating MAT within an integrated primary care clinic and residency program with waiver training for residents was a successful and innovative program. The availability of MAT provided a solution for patients that could benefit from this type of treatment. MAT presence gave providers the opportunity to refer these patients for treatment that had not previously been as accessible. Conclusion: An integrated primary care practice with an embedded MAT can be successful with an organized structure to optimize clinic flow.