Submitted on behalf: Wayne Dickey, PhD; Karissa Miller, PMP; Debra Manning, MD; Lynn Hallard, MS Background: The Research and Engineering Directorate (R&E) Implementation Science Program (ISP) joined other Defense Health Agency (DHA) work groups in September 2024 to support implementation of several digital and remote patient support solutions throughout the Military Health enterprise – Accelerating Care Transformation (ACT), later rebranded as My Military Health (MMH). A stepped-up timetable to proceed with solutions implementation necessitated a quick turnaround. One of those solutions was to build a method to reasonably estimate Military Health System (MHS) facilities’ level of performance in implementing these solutions over time. Construction: To build this method, we reimagined guidance deconstruction from our prior implementation projects towards developing a performance assessment instrument. We pulled language into more manageable, itemized pieces – either directly or reasonably implied – from two authoritative implementation guidance documents. The first was an ACT Playbook designed as an implementation guidebook. The second was a set of policy documents that instructed on evolving solutions implementation as requirement. Each piece of individual guidance was categorized as milestones under an umbrella implementation practice component and ordered in a manner implying levels of implementation maturity. The instrument was designed as both a self-report implementation checklist and a self-report performance rating scale (0 – 100) informed by implementation milestones achieved in the checklist. The milestones in the checklist and the 0 – 100 scale were quartered to imply different stages of implementation completion: 1) setting the stage, 2) pre-implementation, 3) implementation, 4) sustainment. In total, five checklists and accompanying performance ratings were included in the instrument, representing separate practice components in the overall implementation mission: 1) outreach and communications, 2) stakeholder identification and engagement, 3) data collection and analysis, 4) implementation barriers assessment and mitigation, and 5) implementation planning and execution. An overall implementation rating is calculated by averaging across the five component ratings. Implications: On a monthly basis, assessors from select MHS healthcare facilities were requested to report on their relevant facilities’ milestones completion and accompanying scaled performance rating. As a tool in support of continuous process improvement, our method provides an opportunity to gauge Network and facility-level performance in a systematic manner to support overall MMH implementation. Though lacking time-consuming investigations into validity and reliability, our MMH performance assessment instrument reflects a nimble solution applying a face-valid method to an implementation mission highly valued by DHA leadership and requiring quick turnaround. Results from these assessments will be shared as a demonstration.