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 | Â | Â |
Peer pressure | ||
External policy and incentives | ||
| Â | Regulatory or purchaser | Contracts requiring the reporting of EBP increases awareness and motivation |
| Â | Changing contracting | Benchmark reporting creates transparency and social pressure to implement |
| Â | Collect data | Modifier codes create system wide data tracking method on practices |
| Â | 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 |