Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 13:3:26334895221137927.
doi: 10.1177/26334895221137927. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec.

Augmenting systems-level implementation of patient-reported outcomes for depression care through the use of structured analysis and design technique

Affiliations

Augmenting systems-level implementation of patient-reported outcomes for depression care through the use of structured analysis and design technique

Elizabeth J Austin et al. Implement Res Pract. .

Abstract

Background: Health systems increasingly need to implement complex practice changes such as the routine capture of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Yet, health systems have met challenges when trying to bring practice change to scale across systems at large. While implementation science can guide the evaluation of implementation determinants, teams first need tools to systematically understand and compare workflow activities across practice sites. Structured analysis and design technique (SADT), a system engineering method of workflow modeling, may offer an opportunity to enhance the scalability of implementation evaluation for complex practice change like PROs.

Method: We utilized SADT to identify the core workflow activities needed to implement PROs across diverse settings and goals for use, establishing a generalizable PRO workflow diagram. We then used the PRO workflow diagram to guide implementation monitoring and evaluation for a 1-year pilot implementation of the electronic Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (ePHQ). The pilot occurred across multiple clinical settings and for two clinical use cases: depression screening and depression management.

Results: SADT identified five activities central to the use of PROs in clinical care: deploying PRO measures, collecting PRO data, tracking PRO completion, reviewing PRO results, and documenting PRO data for future use. During the 1-year pilot, 8,596 patients received the ePHQ for depression screening via the patient portal, of which 1,719 (21%) submitted the ePHQ; 367 patients received the ePHQ for depression management, of which 174 (47%) submitted the ePHQ. We present three case examples of how the SADT PRO workflow diagram augmented implementation monitoring, tailoring, and evaluation activities.

Conclusions: Use of a generalizable PRO workflow diagram aided the ability to systematically assess barriers and facilitators to fidelity and identify needed adaptations. The use of SADT offers an opportunity to align systems science and implementation science approaches, augmenting the capacity for health systems to advance system-level implementation.

Plain language summary: Health systems increasingly need to implement complex practice changes such as the routine capture of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Yet these system-level changes can be challenging to manage given the variability in practice sites and implementation context across the system at large. We utilized a systems engineering method-structured analysis and design technique-to develop a generalizable diagram of PRO workflow that captures five common workflow activities: deploying PRO measures, collecting PRO data, tracking PRO completion, reviewing PRO results, and documenting PRO data for future use. Next, we used the PRO workflow diagram to guide our implementation of PROs for depression care in multiple clinics. Our experience showed that use of a standard workflow diagram supported our implementation evaluation activities in a systematic way. The use of structured analysis and design technique may enhance future implementation efforts in complex health settings.

Keywords: implementation process; patient-reported outcomes; workflow modeling.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared the no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Template and example of components Involved in structured analysis and design technique (SADT) diagramming.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) workflow diagram.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Austin, E., LeRouge, C., Hartzler, A. L., Segal, C., & Lavallee, D. C. (2020). Capturing the patient voice: Implementing patient-reported outcomes across the health system. Quality of Life Research, 29(2), 347–355. 10.1007/s11136-019-02320-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barnes G. D., Acosta J., Kurlander J. E., Sales A. E. (2021). Using health systems engineering approaches to prepare for tailoring of implementation interventions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(1), 178–185. 10.1007/s11606-020-06121-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Churruca K., Ludlow K., Taylor N., Long J. C., Best S., Braithwaite J. (2019). The time has come: Embedded implementation research for health care improvement. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25(3), 373–380. 10.1111/jep.13100 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Congram C., Epelman M. (1995). How to describe your service: An invitation to the structured analysis and design technique. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(2), 6–23. 10.1108/09564239510084914 - DOI
    1. Damschroder L., Aron D., Keith R., Kirsh S., Alexander J., Lowery J. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources