Dataset Information

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scientists and mental health clinical managers to: establish consensus on a common nomenclature for implementation strategy terms, definitions and categories; and develop recommendations to enhance the match between implementation strategies selected to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs and the context of certain service settings, in this case the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services.

Methods/design

This study will use purposive sampling to recruit an Expert Panel comprising implementation science experts and VA mental health clinical managers. A novel, four-stage sequential mixed methods design will be employed. During Stage 1, the Expert Panel will participate in a modified Delphi process in which a published taxonomy of implementation strategies will be used to establish consensus on terms and definitions for implementation strategies. In Stage 2, the panelists will complete a concept mapping task, which will yield conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies as well as ratings of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy. Utilizing the common nomenclature developed in Stages 1 and 2, panelists will complete an innovative menu-based choice task in Stage 3 that involves matching implementation strategies to hypothetical implementation scenarios with varying contexts. This allows for quantitative characterizations of the relative necessity of each implementation strategy for a given scenario. In Stage 4, a live web-based facilitated expert recommendation process will be employed to establish expert recommendations about which implementations strategies are essential for each phase of implementation in each scenario.

Discussion

Using a novel method of selecting implementation strategies for use within specific contexts, this study contributes to our understanding of implementation science and practice by sharpening conceptual distinctions among a comprehensive collection of implementation strategies.

SUBMITTER: Waltz TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3987065 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study.

Waltz Thomas J TJ Powell Byron J BJ Chinman Matthew J MJ Smith Jeffrey L JL Matthieu Monica M MM Proctor Enola K EK Damschroder Laura J LJ Kirchner JoAnn E JE

Implementation science : IS 20140326

<h4>Background</h4>Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scie ...[more]

PMID: 24669765

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation frameworks may support local implementation strategies with a sound theoretical foundation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) facilitates identification of contextual barriers and facilitators, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) allows identifying adequate implementation strategies. Both instruments are already used in German-speaking countries; however, no standardised and validated translation is available thus far. The aim of this study was to translate the CFIR and ERIC framework into German, in order to increase the use of these frameworks and the adherence to evidence-based implementation efforts in German-speaking countries.MethodsThe translation of the original versions of the CFIR and ERIC framework was guided by the World Health Organisation's recommendations for the process of translating and adapting both conceptual frameworks. Accordingly, a four-step process was employed: first, forward translation from English into German was conducted by a research team of German native speakers with fluent knowledge of the English language. Second, a bilingual expert panel comprising one researcher with German as his mother tongue and expert command of the English language and one English language expert and university teacher reviewed the translation and discussed inconsistencies with the initial translators. Third, back-translation into English was conducted by an English native speaking researcher. The final version was pre-tested with 12 German researchers and clinicians who were involved in implementation projects using cognitive interviews.ResultsThe translation and review process revealed some inconsistencies between the original version and the German translations. All issues could be solved by discussion. Central aspects of the items were confirmed in 60 to 70% of the items, and modifications were proposed in 30% of the items. Finally, we revised one CFIR-item heading after pre-testing. The final version was given consent by all involved parties.ConclusionsNow, two validated and tested implementation frameworks to guide implementation efforts are available in the German language and can be used to increase the application of agreed-on implementation strategies into practice.

Project description:Discharge bundles, comprising evidence-based practices to be implemented prior to discharge, aim to optimise patient outcomes. They have been recommended to address high readmission rates in patients who have been hospitalised for an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Hospital readmission is associated with increased morbidity and healthcare resource utilisation, contributing substantially to the economic burden of COPD. Previous studies suggest that COPD discharge bundles may result in fewer hospital readmissions, lower risk of mortality and improvement of patient quality of life. However, evidence for their effectiveness is inconsistent, likely owing to variable content and implementation of these bundles. To ensure consistent provision of high-quality care for patients hospitalised with an exacerbation of COPD and reduce readmission rates following discharge, we propose a comprehensive discharge protocol, and provide evidence highlighting the importance of each element of the protocol. We then review care bundles used in COPD and other disease areas to understand how they affect patient outcomes, the barriers to implementing these bundles and what strategies have been used in other disease areas to overcome these barriers. We identified four evidence-based care bundle items for review prior to a patient's discharge from hospital, including (1) smoking cessation and assessment of environmental exposures, (2) treatment optimisation, (3) pulmonary rehabilitation, and (4) continuity of care. Resource constraints, lack of staff engagement and knowledge, and complexity of the COPD population were some of the key barriers inhibiting effective bundle implementation. These barriers can be addressed by applying learnings on successful bundle implementation from other disease areas, such as healthcare practitioner education and audit and feedback. By utilising the relevant implementation strategies, discharge bundles can be more (cost-)effectively delivered to improve patient outcomes, reduce readmission rates and ensure continuity of care for patients who have been discharged from hospital following a COPD exacerbation.

Project description:BackgroundCharacteristics of both individuals and innovations are foundational determinants to the adoption of evidenced-based practices (EBPs). However, our understanding about what drives EBP adoption is limited by few studies examining relationships among implementation determinants and implementation outcomes through theory-driven hypothesis testing. Therefore, drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Diffusion of Innovations Theory, this study will disentangle relationships between provider characteristics and innovation factors on the early adoption of the Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) in behavioral health settings.MethodsThis study will utilize an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. In Phase I (quantitative), Time 1, we will investigate behavioral health providers (N = 200) attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and intentions to screen for TBI upon completion of a video module introducing the OSU TBI-ID. At Time 2, we will examine the number of TBI screens conducted over the previous month, as well as the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of using the OSU TBI-ID in practice. Structural equation modeling will be used to determine whether provider characteristics predict TBI screening intentions, and whether intentions mediate actual TBI screening behaviors. We will then test whether feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of the OSU TBI-ID moderates the relationship between intentions and TBI screening behaviors. In Phase II (qualitative), we will develop an interview guide using results from Phase I and will conduct semi-structured interviews with providers (N = 20) to assess contextual determinants of TBI screening adoption. Qualitative data will be thematically analyzed using sensitizing concepts from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and integrated with the quantitative results using a joint display.DiscussionThis mixed methods study capitalizes on two theory-driven hypotheses bridging proximal (e.g., screening intent) to distal (actual behaviors) implementation outcomes and will contextualize these results qualitatively to advance our understanding about why TBI screening adoption has failed to translate to the behavioral healthcare context. Results of this study will offer insights into what is driving TBI screening adoption so that implementation strategies can be selected with greater precision to improve the adoption, sustainment, and scale-up of TBI screening in behavioral healthcare.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2009 health insurers AOK and Bosch BKK introduced the "FacharztProgramm Kardiologie" - a program for coordinated ambulatory cardiology care in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. It aims for efficient, medical guideline-oriented cardiology care to reduce avoidable hospitalizations as well as costs of care. A high number of cardiologists participate and the program has served as blueprint for programs in other medical fields. With many prerequisites and conditions involved, its implementation cannot be expected to be self-directed. Still, only little data on the actual implementation exists. We aimed to determine to what extent medical specialists and cooperating general practitioners implemented the program, which components they adapted, and which contextual factors they deemed relevant.MethodsWe collected data from primary care practices of medical specialists and general practitioners within Baden-Württemberg. Qualitative data was obtained through structured telephone interviews with participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program and general practitioners not cooperating. Interviews were analyzed through content-structuring qualitative content analyses via MAXQDA. Quantitative data was obtained using anonymous written questionnaires completed by participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program. Analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics, mainly with regard to differences within and between groups of physicians.ResultsMost components of the program regarding medical care were well implemented. However, access to medical care was not completely as intended due to high numbers of patients participating in the program and prioritization by physicians. Procedures for communication and cooperation between medical specialists and general practitioners were only partially adhered to and standardized communication was not implemented. A range of regional and practice-related contextual factors influenced implementation and outcomes.ConclusionsImplementation of this program was mixed. Contextual factors posed individual challenges to participating physicians which can't be captured by an encompassing program. Both control mechanisms and tailoring of the program to medical care seem needed.Trial registrationThough not a clinical study, we deemed registration appropriate to ensure transparency. The study has been registered as a non-interventional observation study at the German Clinical Trials Register under ID: DRKS00013070.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The South African Department of Health has developed and implemented the Integrated Chronic Disease Management (ICDM) model to respond to the increased utilisation of primary healthcare services due to a surge of non-communicable diseases coexisting with a high prevalence of communicable diseases. However, some of the expected outcomes on implementing the ICDM model have not been achieved. The aims of this study are to assess if the observed suboptimal outcomes of the ICDM model implementation are due to lack of fidelity to the ICDM model, to examine the contextual factors associated with the implementation fidelity and to calculate implementation costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A process evaluation, mixed methods study in 16 pilot clinics from two health districts to assess the degree of fidelity to four major components of the ICDM model. Activity scores will be summed per component and overall fidelity score will be calculated by summing the various component scores and compared between components, facilities and districts. The association between contextual factors and the degree of fidelity will be asseseed by multivariate analysis, individual and team characteristics, facility features and organisational culture indicators will be included in the regression. Health system financial and economic costs of implementing the four components of the ICDM model will be calculated using an ingredient approach. The unit of implementation costs will be by activity of each of the major components of the ICDM model. Sensitivity analysis will be carried out using clinic size, degree of fidelity and different inflation situations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol has been approved by the University of Cape Town and University of the Witwatersrand Human Research ethics committees. The results of the study will be shared with the Department of Health, participating health facilities and through scientific publications and conference presentations.

Project description:The program "Implementing Goals of Care Conversations with Veterans in VA LTC Settings" is proposed in partnership with the US Veterans Health Administration (VA) National Center for Ethics in Health Care and the Geriatrics and Extended Care Program Offices, together with the VA Office of Nursing Services. The three projects in this program are designed to support a new system-wide mandate requiring providers to conduct and systematically record conversations with veterans about their preferences for care, particularly life-sustaining treatments. These treatments include cardiac resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and other forms of life support. However, veteran preferences for care go beyond whether or not they receive life-sustaining treatments to include issues such as whether or not they want to be hospitalized if they are acutely ill, and what kinds of comfort care they would like to receive.Three projects, all focused on improving the provision of veteran-centered care, are proposed. The projects will be conducted in Community Living Centers (VA-owned nursing homes) and VA Home-Based Primary Care programs in five regional networks in the Veterans Health Administration. In all the projects, we will use data from context and barrier and facilitator assessments to design feedback reports for staff to help them understand how well they are meeting the requirement to have conversations with veterans about their preferences and to document them appropriately. We will also use learning collaboratives-meetings in which staff teams come together and problem-solve issues they encounter in how to get veterans' preferences expressed and documented, and acted on-to support action planning to improve performance.We will use data over time to track implementation success, measured as the proportions of veterans in Community Living Centers (CLCs) and Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) who have a documented goals of care conversation soon after admission. We will work with our operational partners to spread approaches that work throughout the Veterans Health Administration.

Dataset Information

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Publications

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets