SPREAD-NET: PRactices Enabling Adapting and Disseminating in the Safety NET

NCT ID: NCT02325531

Last Updated: 2022-12-13

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

166 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2014-09-30

Study Completion Date

2021-08-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The investigators propose to compare the effectiveness of 3 strategies (low, medium, high intensity) at supporting CHCs' implementation of the ALL Initiative (an intervention shown to reduce patients' cardiovascular disease (CVD) event risk), through a cluster-randomized trial.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The investigators propose to compare the effectiveness of 3 support strategies for optimizing the sustainable implementation of the evidence-based ALL intervention. To do so, the investigators will randomize 30 community health centers (CHCs) to receive 1 of 3 implementation support strategies: Low support (toolkit only), Medium (toolkit, staff training), High (toolkit, training, on-site facilitation). The study aims are as follows:

Aim 1: Compare the effectiveness of the 3 strategies (low, medium, high intensity) at supporting CHCs' implementation of the ALL intervention, through a cluster-randomized trial.

Hypothesis: Clinics randomized to receive more implementation support will be more likely than those randomized to receive less support (high\>medium\>low) to significantly improve the percent of their patients with (i) guideline-appropriate prescriptions for ACE/ARBs and statins, and (ii) last blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) under control).

Aim 2: Assess how effectively the 3 strategies support intervention sustainability at 12, 24 and 36 months post-implementation, measured as maintenance of change over time (outcomes as in Aim 1).

Hypothesis: Clinics randomized to receive more implementation support will be more likely to maintain changes in the outcomes of interest.

Aim 3: Identify clinic characteristics associated with the support strategies' effectiveness (e.g. decision-making structures, leadership support, team processes / characteristics, readiness and capacity for change).

Research questions: What are the characteristics of clinics that achieve sustained change even with less implementation support, and of those that do not achieve change even with more support?

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Diabetes Mellitus Cardiovascular Disease

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

implementation strategies diabetes mellitus cardiovascular disease community health centers quality improvement translational medical research

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Clinics were randomized and data was collected at the clinic level, there was no data collected at the participant level.
Primary Study Purpose

HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Low support

In this pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, clinics NOT patients were randomized. Clinics were randomly assigned to one of the arms and support was provided to the clinic, not the patient.

EHR-based toolkit Basic webinar

Group Type OTHER

Low support

Intervention Type OTHER

EHR-based tools, built by OCHIN, activated during Year 1 TOOLKIT, paper and electronic form, includes documents to help support ALL implementation, and

BASIC WEBINAR, Annual, 1-hour, topics such as:

Talking to Clinicians About ALL, Using The Monthly Feedback Report and Integrating the Toolkit into Workflows

Medium support

In this pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, clinics NOT patients were randomized. Clinics were randomly assigned to one of the arms and support was provided to the clinic, not the patient.

Support provided to the low support arm, PLUS Staff training Adaptive webinars

Group Type OTHER

Medium support

Intervention Type OTHER

Same as provided to the low support arm, PLUS

* STAFF TRAINING (2-day meeting in Portland, Oregon, Led by Implementation Specialists (IS), How to use the toolkit and how to train others to use it, Content guided by previous research, baseline survey results, study team and the S-N advisory group
* ADAPTIVE WEBINARS, Quarterly 1-hr webinars, Content from basic webinars, tailored to topics requested by study clinics. Forum for group discussion and best practice sharing. Open any interested clinics in Arm 2 \& 3.

High support

In this pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, clinics NOT patients were randomized. Clinics were randomly assigned to one of the arms and support was provided to the clinic, not the patient.

Support provided to the low and medium support arms, PLUS Practice facilitation

Group Type OTHER

High support

Intervention Type OTHER

Same as provided to the low and medium support arms, PLUS

\- PRACTICE FACILITATION: Site visits with support as needed, Staff presentations, Coaching on tools (how to present to clinic staff and how to use in the clinic workflow), Tailored problem-solving support to address identified barriers, Clinical questions fielded by RN practice facilitator and site clinician champion.

Comparison

In this pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, clinics NOT patients were randomized. Clinics were randomly assigned to one of the arms and support was provided to the clinic, not the patient.

No support was provided by the researchers. The EHR-based toolkit was available to all clinics in the network if they actively searched it out in the EHR.

Group Type OTHER

Comparison

Intervention Type OTHER

No support was provided by the researchers. The EHR-based toolkit was available to all clinics in the network if they actively searched it out in the EHR.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Low support

EHR-based tools, built by OCHIN, activated during Year 1 TOOLKIT, paper and electronic form, includes documents to help support ALL implementation, and

BASIC WEBINAR, Annual, 1-hour, topics such as:

Talking to Clinicians About ALL, Using The Monthly Feedback Report and Integrating the Toolkit into Workflows

Intervention Type OTHER

Medium support

Same as provided to the low support arm, PLUS

* STAFF TRAINING (2-day meeting in Portland, Oregon, Led by Implementation Specialists (IS), How to use the toolkit and how to train others to use it, Content guided by previous research, baseline survey results, study team and the S-N advisory group
* ADAPTIVE WEBINARS, Quarterly 1-hr webinars, Content from basic webinars, tailored to topics requested by study clinics. Forum for group discussion and best practice sharing. Open any interested clinics in Arm 2 \& 3.

Intervention Type OTHER

High support

Same as provided to the low and medium support arms, PLUS

\- PRACTICE FACILITATION: Site visits with support as needed, Staff presentations, Coaching on tools (how to present to clinic staff and how to use in the clinic workflow), Tailored problem-solving support to address identified barriers, Clinical questions fielded by RN practice facilitator and site clinician champion.

Intervention Type OTHER

Comparison

No support was provided by the researchers. The EHR-based toolkit was available to all clinics in the network if they actively searched it out in the EHR.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Convenience sample, all patients with Diabetes Mellitus from 30 community health clinics (CHCs) that are members of OCHIN, Inc.

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients without diagnosed DM
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

75 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)

NIH

Sponsor Role collaborator

OCHIN, Inc.

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Kaiser Permanente

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Rachel Gold, PhD, MPH

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Kaiser Permanente

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Kaiser Permanente - Center for Health Research

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Gold R, Bunce A, Cowburn S, Davis JV, Nelson JC, Nelson CA, Hicks E, Cohen DJ, Horberg MA, Melgar G, Dearing JW, Seabrook J, Mossman N, Bulkley J. Does increased implementation support improve community clinics' guideline-concordant care? Results of a mixed methods, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial. Implement Sci. 2019 Dec 5;14(1):100. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0948-5.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 31805968 (View on PubMed)

Gruss I, Bunce A, Davis J, Gold R. Unintended consequences: a qualitative study exploring the impact of collecting implementation process data with phone interviews on implementation activities. Implement Sci Commun. 2020 Nov 4;1(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00093-7.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 33292848 (View on PubMed)

Bunce AE, Gruss I, Davis JV, Cowburn S, Cohen D, Oakley J, Gold R. Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial. Implement Sci. 2020 Oct 1;15(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01048-1.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 32998750 (View on PubMed)

Gold R, Hollombe C, Bunce A, Nelson C, Davis JV, Cowburn S, Perrin N, DeVoe J, Mossman N, Boles B, Horberg M, Dearing JW, Jaworski V, Cohen D, Smith D. Study protocol for "Study of Practices Enabling Implementation and Adaptation in the Safety Net (SPREAD-NET)": a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies. Implement Sci. 2015 Oct 16;10:144. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0333-y.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 26474759 (View on PubMed)

Provided Documents

Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.

Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan

View Document

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

1R01HL120894-01

Identifier Type: NIH

Identifier Source: secondary_id

View Link

1R01HL120894-01

Identifier Type: NIH

Identifier Source: org_study_id

View Link