The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders’ reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research. STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project’s advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC. Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools. Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.

As genome sequencing technology advances, research is needed to guide decision‐making about what results can or should be offered to patients in different clinical settings. We conducted three focus groups with individuals who had prior preconception genetic testing experience to explore perceived advantages and disadvantages of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening, compared to usual care. Using a discussion guide, a trained qualitative moderator facilitated the audio‐recorded focus groups. Sixteen individuals participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts started with a grounded approach and subsequently focused on participants’ perceptions of the value of genetic information. Analysis uncovered two orientations toward genomic preconception carrier screening: “certain” individuals desiring all possible screening information; and “hesitant” individuals who were more cautious about its value. Participants revealed valuable information about barriers to screening: fear/anxiety about results; concerns about the method of returning results; concerns about screening necessity; and concerns about partner participation. All participants recommended offering choice to patients to enhance the value of screening and reduce barriers. Overall, two groups of likely users of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening demonstrated different perceptions of the advantages or disadvantages of screening, suggesting tailored approaches to education, consent, and counseling may be warranted with each group.

Few studies describe system-level challenges or facilitators to implementing population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outreach programs. Our qualitative study explored viewpoints of multilevel stakeholders before, during, and after implementation of a centralized outreach program. Program implementation was part of a broader quality-improvement initiative. During 2008–2010, we conducted semi-structured, open-ended individual interviews and focus groups at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW), a not-for-profit group model health maintenance organization using the practical robust implementation and sustainability model to explore external and internal barriers to CRC screening. We interviewed 55 stakeholders: 8 health plan leaders, 20 primary care providers, 4 program managers, and 23 endoscopy specialists (15 gastroenterologists, 8 general surgeons), and analyzed interview transcripts to identify common as well as divergent opinions expressed by stakeholders. The majority of stakeholders at various levels consistently reported that an automated telephone-reminder system to contact patients and coordinate mailing fecal tests alleviated organizational constraints on staff’s time and resources. Changing to a single-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) lessened patient and provider concerns about feasibility and accuracy of fecal testing. The centralized telephonic outreach program did, however, result in some screening duplication and overuse. Higher rates of FIT completion and a higher proportion of positive results with FIT required more colonoscopies. Addressing barriers at multiple levels of a health system by changing the delivery system design to add a centralized outreach program, switching to a more accurate and easier-to-use fecal test, and providing educational and electronic support had both benefits and problematic consequences. Other health care organizations can use our results to understand the complexities of implementing centralized screening programs.

Purpose: Evidence-based guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed colon cancer be screened for Lynch syndrome (LS), but best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have not been extensively studied. We interviewed a range of stakeholders in an integrated health-care system to identify initial factors that might promote or hinder the successful implementation of a universal LS screening program. Methods: We conducted interviews with health-plan leaders, managers, and staff. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis began with a grounded approach and was also guided by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). Results: We completed 14 interviews with leaders/managers and staff representing involved clinical and health-plan departments. Although stakeholders supported the concept of universal screening, they identified several internal (organizational) and external (environment) factors that promote or hinder implementation. Facilitating factors included perceived benefits of screening for patients and organization, collaboration between departments, and availability of organizational resources. Barriers were also identified, including: lack of awareness of guidelines, lack of guideline clarity, staffing and program “ownership” concerns, and cost uncertainties. Analysis also revealed nine important infrastructure-type considerations for successful implementation. Conclusion: We found that clinical, laboratory, and administrative departments supported universal tumor screening for LS. Requirements for successful implementation may include interdepartmental collaboration and communication, patient and provider/staff education, and significant infrastructure and resource support related to laboratory processing and systems for electronic ordering and tracking. Genet Med 18 2, 152–161.

Little is known about the challenges faced by community clinics who must address clinical priorities first when participating in pragmatic studies. We