Table 1 Crosswalk of implementation frameworks and the Washington State strategy
From: Advancing the state-level tracking of evidence-based practices: a case study
| Consolidated framework | Policy ecology framework | Washington State |
|---|---|---|
| Outer setting | Provider organization | Hypothesized effects |
| Patient needs and resources | Flexible and enhanced reimbursement | Modifier codes tracking provides relatively low burden monitoring for enhanced reimbursement |
| Cosmopolitanism | ||
| Peer pressure | ||
| External policy and incentives | ||
| Regulatory or purchaser | Contracts requiring the reporting of EBP increases awareness and motivation | |
| Changing contracting | Benchmark reporting creates transparency and social pressure to implement | |
| Collect data | Modifier codes create system wide data tracking method on practices | |
| Enabling legislation | Legislation requiring a report of investment and increased use supported a climate of EBP use | |
| Inner setting | ||
| Structural characteristics | Required reporting shifts supervision focus to core elements | |
| Networks and communications | Workshop and technical assistance on using the guides expands the network of communication | |
| Culture | Documentation of use in treatment plan and notes increases attention to adherence within the organization | |
| Intervention characteristics | ||
| Intervention source | Eligible training programs are assessed based on their incorporation of evidence-based core elements | |
| Adaptability | Core elements conducive to the adaptable periphery | |
| Trialability | The guides attempt to reduce complexity by crosswalking name brand language with core concepts | |
| Complexity | Focus on core elements simplifies therapeutic concepts | |
| Cost | The guides support reduced costs by allowing different purveyors to enter the market | |