NIATx: The Intersection of Behavioral Health and Systems Engineering — A Conversation with David H. Gustafson

By David H. Gustafson, PhD, Director, Center for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, and Maureen Fitzgerald, Communications Manager, Great Lakes ATTC, MHTTC, and PTTC

Update: In Memoriam

It is with deep sadness that we acknowledge the passing of Don Holloway, who made significant contributions to the NIATx model. 

Learn more about Don’s legacy.

Dave Gustafson

Dave Gustafson directs the University of Wisconsin−Madison’s , which includes the , , , , and several research projects that focus on using systems engineering tools to support sustainable individual and organizational improvement. His individual and systems change research develops and tests technology to help people deal with issues affecting quality of life, including addiction, cancer, and aging.

When NIATx launched in 2003, did you envision it expanding and continuing to grow 20 years later?

"No, it was not a long-term view at all. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation What was something that surprised you in the NIATx evolution?

“The biggest surprise was recognizing how little I knew about what it takes for your work to have a broad impact. Victor Capoccia was always thinking about NIATx at a much broader level and set the direction for us. He'd call me and say, "OK, I've set up a meeting with Congress so we can talk about this," or, "I think we can hold a national conference."

Other things came up, but I wouldn’t refer to them as surprises—more like accidental discoveries. Some of the changes we made came about just from conversations. One that stands out is a conversation I had with Dean Lea, one of our NIATx coaches for the first project. Dean and I were driving back from a visit to a treatment center in Maine that Lynn Madden (a current NIATx coach) was directing. We’d been looking at appointment books from a lot of agencies and could see from the packed schedules that there was no room for new patients. But we could also see how many appointments were canceled or no-shows. While the field as a whole was saying they could not meet demand, agencies often had 35% unused space. Dean said, "I don't know why people even bother to schedule appointments because nobody shows up.”

So, we went back to Lynn and talked about not scheduling appointments. This turned into trying out the idea of (what Lynn called) on-demand appointments. That solution just took off. So that's one solution we came up with by accident, not planning. 51% of innovations come up by accident, not by planning. It was an Aha! moment that made a tremendous difference in treatment access. As Einstein said, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research." It’s the stumbling along that brings about great ideas.”

“Many things contributed to NIATx expansion. A top factor was staying focused on our original four aims: reducing waiting time, reducing no-shows, increasing admissions, and increasing continuation. Don Holloway, who was part of the team that launched NIATx, told me to really drive that message whenever I got in front of a group to talk about what NIATx was and was not. Staying focused on just those four aims  (and nothing else) at a time made the change projects manageable for our providers versus feeling overwhelmed by the idea of having to overhaul their systems completely. Maintaining that single focus was important.

I also think that the simplicity of the NIATx change model is what makes it so powerful. We told providers that they only had to follow —not 10 or 15—and that they only had to try a change for a very short time. If it worked, great. But if didn’t, then stop and try something else. The idea was to keep NIATx simple and fast-moving enough so people could easily adopt it.

Another factor in our success was the doors that Victor Capoccia and Fran Cotter from opened and their commitment to the project. SAMHSA-funded projects led from a focus on individual treatment agencies to the role of state agencies and the tremendous impact they can have on treatment delivery.

I would add research as another factor contributing to the NIATx trajectory, with work by Todd Molfenter, Jay Ford, and others helping drive widespread implementation and testing in new spaces. Plus, the NIATx Change Leader Academy (CLA) that we launched in 2006 has played a huge role in dissemination efforts and has trained hundreds nationwide.  Mat Roosa and Scott Gatzke continue to refine the CLA to respond to the field’s evolving needs, including work with Alfredo Cerrato on applying NIATx tools to foster cultural responsiveness. That’s really exciting. And then, the stories. How many times have I told the story of creating a persona of someone with a heroin addiction and then trying to get my persona admitted for treatment? How I was told to call back for seven weeks in a row to find out if a bed was available when my persona was ready for (and needed) treatment that day! While the science is there, it’s anemic compared to a great story. And, of course, the ATTC/NIATx Service Improvement Blog has been a great way for sharing these stories over the past decade.”

“The NIATx approach is embedded in the way I think about things and continue to integrate into everything I do. One project that’s been a great interest of mine for some time is the idea of automating addiction treatment, or in other words, finding ways to explore how technology, and that includes AI, can play a role in prevention, treatment, and recovery. The NIATx model of rapid cycle improvement is playing a fundamental role in that effort right now.”

“One of our current initiatives involves weekly Zoom meetups with around 60 older adults. We kick things off by having participants break into small groups to share something positive or challenging that’s happened in the previous week. We spend the initial 10 minutes in open conversation, then shift gears—assigning someone to lead a discussion on a weekly theme. It could be something as straightforward as dietary choices for older adults, a shared concern for everyone. Then, a member of our research team will give a brief but informative lecture on the topic, followed by a wrap-up 30-minute discussion where everyone pitches in with their thoughts. Towards the end, we summarize the key takeaways and wrap up with a movement exercise.

The impact has been astounding. I initially thought the idea of bringing people together on Zoom was good, but it turns out it's a great idea! I've never experienced such a profound response before. People are emotionally moved, and some have even teared up when they learn that the intervention is coming to an end. That leads us to ask what the next step is. What's the message here, and where is this taking us? It's been a powerful journey, and the participants' emotional response speaks volumes about this project's impact.”