Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' and policy makers' views on implementing a clinical practice guideline of hypertension management: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Most studies have reported barriers to guideline usage mainly from doctors' perspective; few have reported the perspective of other stakeholders. This study aimed to determine the views and barriers to adherence of a national clinical practice guideline (CPG) on management of hypertension from the perspectives of policymakers, doctors and allied healthcare professionals.

Methods

This study used a qualitative approach with purposive sampling. Seven in depth interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted with 35 healthcare professionals (policy makers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses) at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between February and June 2013. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyse the data.

Results

Two main themes and three sub-themes emerged from this study. The main themes were (1) variation in the use of CPG and (2) barriers to adherence to CPG. The three sub-themes for barriers were issues inherent to the CPG, systems and policy that is not supportive of CPG use, and attitudes and behaviour of stakeholders. The main users of the CPG were the primary care doctors. Pharmacists only partially use the guidelines, while nurses and policy makers were not using the CPG at all. Participants had suggested few strategies to improve usage and adherence to CPG. First, update the CPG regularly and keep its content simple with specific sections for allied health workers. Second, use technology to facilitate CPG accessibility and provide protected time for implementation of CPG recommendations. Third, incorporate local CPG in professional training, link CPG adherence to key performance indicators and provide incentives for its use.

Conclusions

Barriers to the use of CPG hypertension management span across all stakeholders. The development and implementation of CPG focused mainly on doctors with lack of involvement of other healthcare stakeholders. Guidelines should be made simple, current, reliable, accessible, inclusive of all stakeholders and with good policy support.

SUBMITTER: Lee PY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4420249 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare professionals' and policy makers' views on implementing a clinical practice guideline of hypertension management: a qualitative study.

Lee Ping Yein PY Liew Su May SM Abdullah Adina A Abdullah Nurdiana N Ng Chirk Jenn CJ Hanafi Nik Sherina NS Chia Yook Chin YC Lai Pauline S M PS Wong Stalia S L SS Khoo Ee Ming EM

PloS one 20150505 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Most studies have reported barriers to guideline usage mainly from doctors' perspective; few have reported the perspective of other stakeholders. This study aimed to determine the views and barriers to adherence of a national clinical practice guideline (CPG) on management of hypertension from the perspectives of policymakers, doctors and allied healthcare professionals.<h4>Methods</h4>This study used a qualitative approach with purposive sampling. Seven in depth interviews ...[more]

PMID: 25942686

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Providing healthcare professionals with health surveillance data aims to support professional and organisational behaviour change. The UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Strategy 2013 to 2018 identified better access to and use of surveillance data as a key component. Our aim was to determine the extent to which data on antimicrobial use and resistance met the perceived needs of health care professionals and policy-makers at national, regional and local levels, and how provision could be improved. METHODS:We conducted 41 semi-structured interviews with national policy makers in the four Devolved Administrations and 71 interviews with health care professionals in six locations across the United Kingdom selected to achieve maximum variation in terms of population and health system characteristics. Transcripts were analysed thematically using a mix of a priori reasoning guided by the main topics in the interview guide together with themes emerging inductively from the data. Views were considered at three levels - primary care, secondary care and national - and in terms of availability of data, current uses, benefits, gaps and potential improvements. RESULTS:Respondents described a range of uses for prescribing and resistance data. The principal gaps identified were prescribing in private practice, internet prescribing and secondary care (where some hospitals did not have electronic prescribing systems). Some respondents under-estimated the range of data available. There was a perception that the responsibility for collecting and analysing data often rests with a few individuals who may lack sufficient time and appropriate skills. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to raise awareness of data availability and the potential value of these data, and to ensure that data systems are more accessible. Any skills gap at local level in how to process and use data needs to be addressed. This requires an identification of the best methods to improve support and education relating to AMR data systems.

Project description:IntroductionAntipsychotic medication is increasingly prescribed to patients with serious mental illness. Patients with serious mental illness often have cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities, and antipsychotics independently increase the risk of cardiometabolic disease. Despite this, many patients prescribed antipsychotics are discharged to primary care without planned psychiatric review. We explore perceptions of healthcare professionals and managers/directors of policy regarding reasons for increasing prevalence and management of antipsychotics in primary care.MethodsQualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 11 general practitioners (GPs), 8 psychiatrists, and 11 managers/directors of policy in the United Kingdom. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsRespondents reported competency gaps that impaired ability to manage patients prescribed antipsychotic medications, arising from inadequate postgraduate training and professional development. GPs lacked confidence to manage antipsychotic medications alone; psychiatrists lacked skills to address cardiometabolic risks and did not perceive this as their role. Communication barriers, lack of integrated care records, limited psychology provision, lowered expectation towards patients with serious mental illness by professionals, and pressure to discharge from hospital resulted in patients in primary care becoming 'trapped' on antipsychotics, inhibiting opportunities to deprescribe. Organisational and contractual barriers between services exacerbate this risk, with socioeconomic deprivation and lack of access to non-pharmacological interventions driving overprescribing. Professionals voiced fears of censure if a catastrophic event occurred after stopping an antipsychotic. Facilitators to overcome these barriers were suggested.ConclusionsPeople prescribed antipsychotics experience a fragmented health system and suboptimal care. Several interventions could be taken to improve care for this population, but inadequate availability of non-pharmacological interventions and socioeconomic factors increasing mental distress need policy change to improve outcomes. The role of professionals' fear of medicolegal or regulatory censure inhibiting antipsychotic deprescribing was a new finding in this study.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To elicit European healthcare policy-makers' views, understanding and attitudes about the implementation of frailty screening and management strategies and responses to stakeholders' views. DESIGN:Thematic analysis of semistructured qualitative interviews. SETTING:European healthcare policy departments. PARTICIPANTS:Seven European healthcare policy-makers representing the European Union (n=2), UK (n=2), Italy (n=1), Spain (n=1) and Poland (n=1). Participants were sourced through professional networks and the European Commission Authentication Service website and were required to be in an active healthcare policy or decision-making role. RESULTS:Seven themes were identified. Our findings reveal a 'knowledge gap', around frailty and awareness of the malleability of frailty, which has resulted in restricted ownership of frailty by specialists. Policy-makers emphasised the need to recognise frailty as a clinical syndrome but stressed that it should be managed via an integrated and interdisciplinary response to chronicity and ageing. That is, through social co-production. This would require a culture shift in care with redeployment of existing resources to deliver frailty management and intervention services. Policy-makers proposed barriers to a culture shift, indicating a need to be innovative with solutions to empower older adults to optimise their health and well-being, while still fully engaging in the social environment. The cultural acceptance of an integrated care system theme described the complexities of institutional change management, as well as cultural issues relating to working democratically, while in signposting adult care, the need for a personal navigator to help older adults to access appropriate services was proposed. Policy-makers also believed that screening for frailty could be an effective tool for frailty management. CONCLUSIONS:There is potential for frailty to be managed in a more integrated and person-centred manner, overcoming the challenges associated with niche ownership within the healthcare system. There is also a need to raise its profile and develop a common understanding of its malleability among stakeholders, as well as consistency in how and when it is measured.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are. METHODS:Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers. RESULTS:Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, little is known about the types of evidence used by policy makers. This study aimed to investigate how policy makers in the health domain use and evaluate evidence and how this differs from academic epidemiologists. By having a better understanding of how policy makers select, evaluate, and use evidence, academics can tailor the way in which that evidence is produced, potentially leading to more effective knowledge translation.MethodsAn exploratory mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures were collected via an anonymous online survey (n?=?28), with sampling from three health-related government and non-government organizations. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers (n?=?20) and epidemiologists (n?=?6) were conducted to gather qualitative data.ResultsPolicy makers indicated systematic reviews were the preferred research resource (19%), followed closely by qualitative research (16%). Neither policy makers nor epidemiologists used grading instruments to evaluate evidence. In the web survey, policy makers reported that consistency and strength of evidence (93%), the quality of data (93%), bias in the evidence (79%), and recency of evidence (79%) were the most important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the available evidence. The same results were found in the qualitative interviews. Epidemiologists focused on the methodology used in the study. The most cited barriers to using robust evidence, according to policy makers, were political considerations (60%), time limitations (55%), funding (50%), and research not being applicable to current policies (50%).ConclusionThe policy maker's investigation did not report a systematic approach to evaluating evidence. Although there was some overlap between what policy makers and epidemiologists identified as high-quality evidence, there was also some important differences. This suggests that the best scientific evidence may not routinely be used in the development of policy. In essence, the policy-making process relied on other jurisdictions' policies and the opinions of internal staff members as primary evidence sources to inform policy decisions. Findings of this study suggest that efforts should be directed toward making scientific information more systematically available to policy makers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The translation of research into clinical practice is a key component of evidence-informed decision making. We implemented a multi-component dissemination and implementation strategy for healthcare professionals (HCPs) called Evidence Rounds. We report the findings of focus groups and interviews with HCPs to explore their perceptions of Evidence Rounds and help inform the implementation of future similar initiatives. This is the second paper in a two-part series. METHODS:We employed total population, purposive sampling by targeting all of the health care professionals who attended or presented at group sessions exploring the evidence on clinical questions or topics chosen and presented by the HCPs. We conducted and audio-recorded in-person focus groups and one-to-one interviews, which were then transcribed verbatim. Two authors independently coded transcripts. NVivo software was used to collate the primary data and codes. We analysed data guided by the five steps involved in framework analysis; 1) familiarization 2) identifying a thematic framework 3) indexing 4) charting 5) mapping and interpretation. RESULTS:Thirteen HCPs participated, of which 6 were medical doctors an d 7 were nursing or midwifery staff. We identified the following key domains; organisational readiness for change, barriers and facilitators to attendance, barriers and facilitators to presenting, communication and dissemination of information, and sustainability. During focus groups and interviews HCPs reported that Evidence Rounds had a positive impact on their continuing education and clinical practice. They also provided insights into how future initiatives could be optimised to support and enable them to narrow the gap between research evidence and practice. CONCLUSIONS:Individual, departmental and organisational level contextual factors can play a major role in implementation within complex health services. HCPs highlighted how in combination with clinical guideline development, implementation of evidence could be increased. Further research after a longer period of implementation could investigate how initiatives might be optimised to promote the uptake of evidence, improve implementation and expedite behaviour change.

Project description:BackgroundHigh prevalence of falls among older persons makes falls prevention a public health priority. Yet community-based falls prevention face complexity in implementation and any commissioning strategy should be subject to economic evaluation to ensure cost-effective use of healthcare resources. The study aims to capture the views of older people on implementing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on community-based falls prevention and explore how the qualitative data can be used to inform commissioning strategies and conceptual modelling of falls prevention economic evaluation in the local area of Sheffield.MethodsFocus group and interview participants (n = 27) were recruited from Sheffield, England, and comprised falls prevention service users and eligible non-users of varying falls risks. Topics concerned key components of the NICE-recommended falls prevention pathway, including falls risk screening, multifactorial risk assessment and treatment uptake and adherence. Views on other topics concerning falls prevention were also invited. Framework analysis was applied for data analysis, involving data familiarisation, identifying themes, indexing, charting and mapping and interpretation. The qualitative data were mapped to three frameworks: (1) facilitators and barriers to implementing the NICE-recommended pathway and contextual factors; (2) intervention-related causal mechanisms for formulating commissioning strategies spanning context, priority setting, need, supply and demand; and (3) methodological and evaluative challenges for public health economic modelling.ResultsTwo cross-component factors were identified: health motives of older persons; and professional competence. Participants highlighted the need for intersectoral approaches and prioritising the vulnerable groups. The local commissioning strategy should consider the socioeconomic, linguistic, geographical, legal and cultural contexts, priority setting challenges, supply-side mechanisms spanning provider, organisation, funding and policy (including intersectoral) and health and non-health demand motives. Methodological and evaluative challenges identified included: incorporating non-health outcomes and societal intervention costs; considering dynamic complexity; considering social determinants of health; and conducting equity analyses.ConclusionsHolistic qualitative research can inform how commissioned falls prevention pathways can be feasible and effective. Qualitative data can inform commissioning strategies and conceptual modelling for economic evaluations of falls prevention and other geriatric interventions. This would improve the structural validity of quantitative models used to inform geriatric public health policies.

Project description:Crohn's Disease (CD) in Spain lacks of a unified National Clinical Pathway and not even any early detection program and professional follow-up outpatient attention once it has been diagnosed. Little is known about the Spanish health professionals' views of the experiences of individuals living with Crohn's Disease nationwide and also about how the Spanish Health System faces this situation. A qualitative research method was conducted to explore this topic through in-depth interviews with eleven healthcare professionals, who represented different clinics treating people with CD from the province of Alicante (Spain). Three topics and seven sub-topics were derived from the analysis of the content emerging from the interviews. The three main topics were: the healthcare system as a hindrance for ongoing treatment of CD, the impact of the disease, support networks. The knowledge of CD gained by healthcare professionals, in the contexts studied here within, with regards to the psychosocial aspects and the experience of those living with the disease and their immediate circles, is poor, if not null on an academic level, becoming experiential on their incorporation into the professional field. Additionally, a priori, they lack the tools to address the doubts and concerns of patients from the moment of diagnosis through the ongoing care of the patient. Organizational hindrances, such as the lack of time and consensual guidelines for adequately monitoring CD patients in Alicante (Spain), further restrict the patient-professional relationship. Due to the consensus established by the National Agency regulating the contents of the Health Professions' Education and Training across the country, we are assuming that the phenomenon highlighted may be similar in other parts of Spain. Therefore, it can be said that healthcare professionals have a limited understanding of the impact of CD on the day-to-day life of those affected, not being considered a part of the CD patients' formal support network. Nonetheless, they are conscious of this limitation and advocate for multidisciplinary teams as the best means of attending to people living with CD. Our study outcomes may represent the first step onto identifying strategies and best practices for establishing an effective therapeutic relationship, as well as any hindering factors.

Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' and policy makers' views on implementing a clinical practice guideline of hypertension management: a qualitative study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Healthcare professionals' and policy makers' views on implementing a clinical practice guideline of hypertension management: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets