Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to change in the organisation and delivery of endoscopy services in England and Wales: a focus group study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Explore professional views of changes to gastroenterology service organisation and delivery and barriers and facilitators impacting on change. The work was undertaken as part of an evaluation in endoscopy service provision catalysed by the Modernising Endoscopy Services Programme of the Modernisation Agency.

Design

Focus groups followed by analysis and group-working activities identifying key themes.

Setting

English and Welsh secondary care gastroenterology units.

Participants

20 professionals working in gastroenterology in England and Wales. Medical, surgical and nursing specialists including endoscopy nurses. Opportunistic sampling to include senior people in leadership and management roles who were directly involved in service modernisation, excluding those involved in the Modernisation Endoscopy Services Programme.

Results

Four 1.5 h focus groups took place in 2007. Summative and thematic analyses captured essential aspects of text and achieved consensus on key themes. 4 themes were revealed: 'loss of personal autonomy and erosion of professionalism', 'lack of senior management understanding', 'barriers and facilitators to change' and 'differences between English and Welsh units'. Themes indicated that low staff morale, lack of funding and senior management support were barriers to effective change. Limitations to the study include the disproportionately low number of focus group attendees from English units and the time delay in reporting these findings.

Conclusions

Despite ambitions to implement change, ineffective management support continued to hamper modernisation of service organisation and delivery. While the National Health Service Modernisation Agency Modernising Endoscopy Services Programme acted as a catalyst for change, affecting the way staff work, communicate and think, it was not effective in heralding change itself. However, gastroenterologists were keen to consider the potential for change and future service modernisation. The methodological framework of innovative qualitative enquiry offers comprehensive and rigorous enhancement of quantitative studies, including randomised trials, when a mixed methods approach is needed.

SUBMITTER: Rapport F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3383987 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the current provision of hospital-based liaison psychiatry services in England, and to determine different models of liaison service that are currently operating in England.DesignCross-sectional observational study comprising an electronic survey followed by targeted telephone interviews.SettingAll 179 acute hospitals with an emergency department in England.Participants168 hospitals that had a liaison psychiatry service completed an electronic survey. Telephone interviews were conducted for 57 hospitals that reported specialist liaison services additional to provision for acute care.MeasuresData included the location, service structures and staffing, working practices, relations with other mental health service providers, policies such as response times and funding. Model 2-based clustering was used to characterise the services. Telephone interviews identified the range of additional liaison psychiatry services provided.ResultsMost hospitals (141, 79%) reported a 7-day service responding to acute referrals from the emergency department and wards. However, under half of hospitals had 24 hours access to the service (78, 44%). One-third of hospitals (57, 32%) provided non-acute liaison work including outpatient clinics and links to specialist hospital services. 156 hospitals (87%) had a multidisciplinary service including a psychiatrist and mental health nurses. We derived a four-cluster model of liaison psychiatry using variables resulting from the electronic survey; the salient features of clusters were staffing numbers, especially nursing; provision of rapid response 24?hours 7-day acute services; offering outpatient and other non-acute work, and containing age-specific teams for older adults.ConclusionsThis is the most comprehensive study to date of liaison psychiatry in England and demonstrates the wide availability of such services nationally. Although all services provide an acute assessment function, there is no uniformity about hours of coverage or expectation of response times. Most services were better characterised by the model we developed than by current classification systems for liaison psychiatry.

Project description:BackgroundWith rising numbers of elderly people living in nursing homes in Germany, the need for on-site primary care is increasing. A lack of primary care in nursing homes can lead to unnecessary hospitalization, higher mortality, and morbidity in the elderly. The project CoCare ("coordinated medical care") has therefore implemented a complex health intervention in nursing homes, using inter alia, regular medical rounds, a shared patient medical record and medication checks, with the aim of improving the coordination of medical care. This study reports upon the results of a qualitative study assessing the perceived barriers and facilitators of the implementation of CoCare by stakeholders.MethodsFocus group interviews were held between October 2018 and November 2019 with nurses, general practitioners and GP's assistants working or consulting in a participating nursing home. A semi-structured modular guideline was used to ask participants for their opinion on different aspects of CoCare and which barriers and facilitators they perceived. Focus groups were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsIn total, N = 11 focus group interviews with N = 74 participants were conducted. We found six themes describing barriers and facilitators in respect of the implementation of CoCare: understaffing, bureaucracy, complexity, structural barriers, financial compensation, communication and collaboration. Furthermore, participants described the incorporation of the intervention into standard care.ConclusionBarriers perceived by stakeholders are well known in the literature (e.g. understaffing and complexity). However, CoCare provides a good structure to overcome barriers and some barriers will dissolve after implementation into routine care (e.g. bureaucracy). In contrast, especially communication and collaboration were perceived as facilitators in CoCare, with the project being received as a team building intervention itself.Trial registrationWHO UTN: U1111-1196-6611; DRKS-ID: DRKS00012703 (Date of Registration in DRKS: 2017 Aug 23).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The field of eHealth has a history of more than 20 years. During that time, many different eHealth services were developed. However, factors influencing the adoption of such services were seldom the main focus of analyses. For this reason, organizations adopting and implementing eHealth services seem not to be fully aware of the barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of eHealth services into routine care. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this work is to provide (1) a comprehensive list of relevant barriers to be considered and (2) a list of facilitators or success factors to help in planning and implementing successful eHealth services. METHODS:For this study, a twofold approach was applied. First, we gathered experts' current opinions on facilitators and barriers in implementing eHealth services via expert discussions at two health informatics conferences held in Europe. Second, we conducted a systematic literature analysis concerning the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of eHealth services. Finally, we merged the results of the expert discussions with those of the systematic literature analysis. RESULTS:Both expert discussions (23 and 10 experts, respectively) identified 15 barriers and 31 facilitators, whereas 76 barriers and 268 facilitators were found in 38 of the initial 56 articles published from 12 different countries. For the analyzed publications, the count of distinct barriers reported ranged from 0 to 40 (mean 10.24, SD 8.87, median 8). Likewise, between 0 and 48 facilitators were mentioned in the literature (mean 9.18, SD 9.33, median 6). The combination of both sources resulted in 77 barriers and 292 facilitators for the adoption and implementation of eHealth services. CONCLUSIONS:This work contributes a comprehensive list of barriers and facilitators for the implementation and adoption of eHealth services. Addressing barriers early, and leveraging facilitators during the implementation, can help create eHealth services that better meet the needs of users and provide higher benefits for patients and caregivers.

Project description:IntroductionSubstantial variation in the delivery of hip fracture care, and patient outcomes persists between hospitals, despite established UK national standards and guidelines. Patients' outcomes are partly explained by patient-level risk factors, but it is hypothesised that organisational-level factors account for the persistence of unwarranted variation in outcomes. The mixed-methods REducing unwarranted variation in the Delivery of high qUality hip fraCture services in England and Wales (REDUCE) study, aims to determine key organisational factors to target to improve patient care.Methods and analysisQuantitative analysis will assess the outcomes of patients treated at 172 hospitals in England and Wales (2016-2019) using National Hip Fracture Database data combined with English Hospital Episodes Statistics; Patient Episode Database for Wales; Civil Registration (deaths) and multiple organisational-level audits to characterise each service provider. Statistical analyses will identify which organisational factors explain variation in patient outcomes, and typify care pathways with high-quality consistent patient outcomes. Documentary analysis of 20 anonymised British Orthopaedic Association hospital-initiated peer-review reports, and qualitative interviews with staff from four diverse UK hospitals providing hip fracture care, will identify barriers and facilitators to care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major challenge to the resilience of services and interviews will explore strategies used to adapt and innovate. This system-wide understanding will inform the development, in partnership with key national stakeholders, of an 'Implementation Toolkit' to inform and improve commissioning and delivery of hip fracture services.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved: quantitative study by London, City and East Research Ethics Committee (20/LO/0101); and qualitative study by Faculty of Health Sciences University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 108284), National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (20/HRA/71) and each NHS Trust provided Research and Development approval. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, peer-reviewed journals and online workshops.

Project description:Background and aimsDespite the decriminalization of abortion in Nepal in 2002, unsafe abortion is still a significant contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality. Nepal has witnessed a significant drop in abortion-related severe complications and maternal deaths owing to the legalization of abortion laws, lowered financial costs, and wider accessibility of safe abortion services (SAS). However, various factors such as sociocultural beliefs, financial constraints, geographical difficulties, and stigma act as barriers to the liberal accessibility of SAS. This review aimed to determine key barriers obstructing women's access to lawful, safe abortion care and identify facilitators that have improved access to and quality of abortion services.MethodsA systematic search strategy utilizing the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase was used to include studies on the accessibility and safety of abortion services in Nepal. Data were extracted from included studies through close reading. Barriers and facilitators were then categorized into various themes and analyzed.ResultsOf 223 studies, 112 were duplicates, 73 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 18 did not align with the research question; thus, 20 studies were included in the review. Various barriers to SAS in Nepal were categorized as economic, geographic, societal, legal/policy, socio-cultural, health systems, and other factors. Facilitators improving access were categorized as economic/geographic/societal, legal/policy, socio-cultural, and health systems factors. The patterns and trends of barriers and facilitators were analyzed, grouping them under legal/policy, socio-cultural, geographic/accessibility, and health systems factors.ConclusionThe review identifies financial constraints, unfavorable geography, lack of infrastructure, and social stigmatization as major barriers to SAS. Economics and geography, legalization, improved access, reduced cost and active involvement of auxiliary nurse-midwives and community health volunteers are key facilitators.