Dataset Information

A qualitative study on clinicians' perceptions about the implementation of a population risk stratification tool in primary care practice of the Basque health service.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A prospective Population Risk Stratification (PRS) tool was first introduced in the public Basque Health Service in 2011, at the level of its several Primary Care (PC) practices. This paper aims at exploring the new tool's implementation process, as experienced by its potential adopters/users, ie. PC clinicians (doctors and nurses). Findings could help guide future PRS implementation strategies.

Methods

Three focus groups exploring clinicians' opinions and experiences related to the PRS tool and its implementation in their daily practice were conducted. A purposive sample of 12 General Practitioners and 11 PC nurses participated in the groups. Discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis based on Graham et al.'s Knowledge Translation Theory.

Results

Exploring PC clinicians' experience with the new PRS tool, allowed us to identify certain elements working as barriers and facilitators in its implementation process. This series of closely interrelated elements, which emerged as relevant in building up the complex implementation process of the new tool, as experienced by the clinicians, can be grouped into four domains: 1) clinicians' characteristics as potential adopters, 2) clinicians' perceptions of their practice settings where PRS is to implemented, 3) clinicians' perceptions of the tool, and 4) the implementation strategy used by the PRS promoter.

Conclusions

Lessons from the implementation process under study point at the need to frame the implementation of a new PRS tool within a wider strategy encouraging PC clinicians to orientate their daily practice towards a population health approach. The PRS tool could also improve the perceived utility by its potential adopters, by bringing it closer to the clinicians' needs and practice, and allowing it to become context-sensitive. This would require clinicians being involved from the earliest phases of conceptualisation, design and implementation of the new tool, and mounting efforts to improve communication between clinicians and tool promoters.Graham et al.'s Knowledge Translation Theory proved a suitable framework to explore the implementation process of a new PRS tool in the public Basque Health Service's PC practice, and hence to identify implementation barriers and facilitators as experienced by the clinicians.

SUBMITTER: Sauto Arce R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4165939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a highly promising tool for assessing and treating a range of mental illnesses. However, little is known about the perspectives of key stakeholders in mental healthcare, whose support will be critical for its successful implementation into routine clinical practise. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of staff working in the private mental health sector around the use of therapeutic VR, including potential implementation barriers and facilitators. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with cross-disciplinary clinicians (n = 14) and service managers (n = 5), aged 28-70 years working in a major private mental health hospital in Victoria, Australia. Transcripts were analysed using general inductive coding to allow themes to naturally emerge. Results: Three major themes were identified: clinical factors (four subthemes), organisational factors (five subthemes), and professional factors (three subthemes). The themes encompassed enabling factors and potential barriers that need to be addressed for successful implementation of VR. Clinical factors highlighted the influence of knowledge or perceptions about appropriate clinical applications, therapeutic efficacy, safety and ethical concerns, and patient engagement. Organisational factors emphasised the importance of service contexts, including having a strong business case, stakeholder planning, recruitment of local opinion leaders to champion change, and an understanding of resourcing challenges. Professional factors highlighted the need for education and training for staff, and the influence of staff attitudes towards technology and perceived usability of VR. Conclusions: In addition to enabling factors, potential implementation barriers of therapeutic VR were identified, including resourcing constraints, safety and ethical concerns, negative staff attitudes towards technology and VR system limitations. Future dissemination should focus on addressing knowledge and skills gaps and attitudinal barriers through development of clinical guidelines, training programs, and implementation resources (e.g., adoption decision tools, consultation opportunities).

Project description:Building resilience in health systems is an imperative for low- and middle- income countries. Health service managers' ability to implement health innovations may be a key aspect of resilience in primary healthcare facilities, promoting adaptability and functionality. This study investigated health service managers' perceptions and experiences of adopting health innovations. We aimed to identify perceptions of constraints to adoption and emergent behaviours in response to these constraints. A convenience sample of 34 facility, clinical service and sub-district level managers was invited to participate. Six did not respond and were not contactable. In-depth individual interviews in a private space at participants' place of work were conducted with 28 participants. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. NVivo 11 was used to store data and facilitate framework analysis. Study participants described constraints to innovation adoption including: staff lack of understanding of potential benefits; staff personalities, attitudes and behaviours which lead to resistance to change; high workload related to resource constraints and frequent policy changes inducing resistance to change; and suboptimal communication through health system structures. Managers reported employing various strategies to mitigate these constraints. These comprised (1) technical skills including participatory management skills, communication skills, community engagement skills and programme monitoring and evaluation skills, and (2) non-technical skills including role modelling positive attitudes, understanding staff personalities, influencing perceptions of innovations, influencing organizational climate and building trusting relationships. Managers have a vital role in the embedding of service innovations into routine practice. We present a framework of technical and non-technical skills that managers need to facilitate the adoption of health innovations. Future efforts to build managers' capacity to implement health innovations should target these competencies.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore primary care clinician perceptions of barriers and facilitators in delivering care for common mental disorders (CMD) before and after implementation of a consultation-liaison psychiatry service (Psychiatry in Primary Care (PIPC)) in government-operated primary care clinics and to explore the clinicians' experience of the PIPC service itself.DesignThis longitudinal qualitative study was informed by the Normalisation Process Model and involved audiotaped semi-structured individual interviews with front-line clinicians before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the PIPC intervention. The Framework Method was used in the thematic analysis of pre/post interview transcripts.SettingTwo government-operated primary care clinics in Penang, Malaysia.Participants17 primary care medical, nursing and allied health staff recruited purposely to achieve a range of disciplines and a balanced representation from both clinics.InterventionPsychiatrists, accompanied by medical students in small numbers, provided one half-day consultation visit per week, to front-line clinicians in each clinic over an 8-month period. The service involved psychiatric assessment of patients with suspected CMDs, with face-to-face discussion with the referring clinician before and after the patient assessment.ResultsAt Time 1 interviewees tended to equate CMDs with stress and embraced a holistic model of care while also reporting considerable autonomy in mental healthcare and positively appraising their current practices. At Time 2, post-intervention, participants demonstrated a shift towards greater understanding of CMDs as treatable conditions. They reported time pressures and the demands of key performance indicators in other areas as barriers to participation in PIPC. Yet they showed increased awareness of current service deficits and of their potential in delivering improved mental healthcare.ConclusionsDespite resource-related and structural barriers to implementation of national mental health policy in Malaysian primary care settings, our findings suggest that front-line clinicians are receptive to future interventions designed to improve the mental healthcare capacity.

Project description:ImportanceDiscussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations.ObjectiveTo explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020.ExposuresThe SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change.Main outcomes and measuresClinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP.ResultsAmong 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.

Project description:The authors are developing an intake tool based on the Brief International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health Core Set for Hearing Loss, by operationalizing its categories into a Patient Reported Outcome Measure. This study was aimed at identifying enablers and barriers to using this tool as perceived by hearing health professionals (HHPs) and patients. Focus groups and interviews were held with HHPs (ENT surgeons, N = 14; audiologists, N = 8) and patients (N = 18). Interview questions were based on the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model. Using the COM-B model and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), transcript fragments were divided into meaning units, which were then categorized into capability-, opportunity- and motivation-related barriers and enablers. These were further specified into TDF domains. HHP barriers included: lack of time to use the tool (O); and fear of being made responsible for addressing any emerging problems, which may be outside the expertise of the HHP (M). Enablers included integration of the tool in the electronic patient record (O); opportunity for the patient to be better prepared for the intake visit (M); and provision of a complete picture of the patient's functioning via the tool (M). Patient' barriers included fear of losing personal contact with the HHP (M); and fear that use of the tool might negatively affect conversations with the HHP (M). Enablers included knowledge on the aim and relevance of the tool (C); expected better self-preparation (M); and a more focused intake (M). These findings suggest that an intervention is needed to enhance HHPs' knowledge, skills and motivation regarding the relevance and the clinical usefulness of the tool. Providing clear and specific information on the purpose of the tool can also enhance patient motivation. For both HHPs and patients, opportunities relating to the (digital) administration and the design of the tool provide additional targets for successful implementation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation tools (iTools) may enhance uptake of guidelines. However, little evidence exists on their use by primary care clinicians. This study explored which iTools clinicians used and how often; how satisfied clinicians were with the tools; whether tool use was associated with practice changes; and identified mediators for practice change(s) related to breast cancer screening (BCS). METHODS:Canadian primary care providers who are members of the Practice-Based Small Group Learning Program (n?=?1464) were invited to participate in this mixed methods study. An educational module was discussed in a small group learning context, and data collection included an on-line survey, practice reflection tools (PRTs), and interviews. The module included both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care revised guideline on BCS and iTools for clinician and/or patient use. After discussing the module and at 3 months, participants completed PRTs identifying their planned practice change(s) and documenting implementation outcome(s). Use of the iTools was explored via online survey and individual interviews. RESULTS:Seventy participants agreed to participate. Of these, 48 participated in the online survey, 43 completed PRTs and 14 were interviewed. Most survey participants (77%) reported using at least one of seven tools available for implementing BCS guideline. Of these (78%) reported using more than one tool. Almost all participants used tools for clinicians (92%) and 62% also used tools for patients. As more tools were used, more practice changes were reported on the survey and PRTs. Interviews provided additional findings. Once information from an iTool was internalized, there was no further need for the tool. Participants did not use tools (23%) due to disagreements with the BCS guideline, patients' expectations, and/or experiences with diagnosis of breast cancer. CONCLUSION:This study found that clinicians use tools to implement practice changes related to BCS guideline. Tools developed for clinicians were used to understand and consolidate the recommendations before tools to be used with patients were employed to promote decision-making. Mediating factors that impacted tool use confirmed previous research. Finally, use of some iTools decreased over time because information was internalized.