Dataset Information

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Priorities for Improving the Quality and Value of Critical Care.

ABSTRACT: Large amounts of scientific evidence are generated, but not implemented into patient care (the 'knowledge-to-care' gap). We identified and prioritized knowledge-to-care gaps in critical care as opportunities to improve the quality and value of healthcare.We used a multi-method community-based participatory research approach to engage a Network of all adult (n = 14) and pediatric (n = 2) medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in a fully integrated geographically defined healthcare system serving 4 million residents. Participants included Network oversight committee members (n = 38) and frontline providers (n = 1,790). Network committee members used a modified RAND/University of California Appropriateness Methodology, to serially propose, rate (validated 9 point scale) and revise potential knowledge-to-care gaps as priorities for improvement. The priorities were sent to frontline providers for evaluation. Results were relayed back to all frontline providers for feedback.Initially, 68 knowledge-to-care gaps were proposed, rated and revised by the committee (n = 32 participants) over 3 rounds of review and resulted in 13 proposed priorities for improvement. Then, 1,103 providers (62% response rate) evaluated the priorities, and rated 9 as 'necessary' (median score 7-9). Several factors were associated with rating priorities as necessary in multivariable logistic regression, related to the provider (experience, teaching status of ICU) and topic (strength of supporting evidence, potential to benefit the patient, potential to improve patient/family experience, potential to decrease costs).A community-based participatory research approach engaged a diverse group of stakeholders to identify 9 priorities for improving the quality and value of critical care. The approach was time and cost efficient and could serve as a model to prioritize areas for research quality improvement across other settings.

SUBMITTER: Stelfox HT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4619641 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Priorities for Improving the Quality and Value of Critical Care.

Stelfox Henry T HT Niven Daniel J DJ Clement Fiona M FM Bagshaw Sean M SM Cook Deborah J DJ McKenzie Emily E Potestio Melissa L ML Doig Christopher J CJ O'Neill Barbara B Zygun David D

PloS one 20151022 10

<h4>Background</h4>Large amounts of scientific evidence are generated, but not implemented into patient care (the 'knowledge-to-care' gap). We identified and prioritized knowledge-to-care gaps in critical care as opportunities to improve the quality and value of healthcare.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a multi-method community-based participatory research approach to engage a Network of all adult (n = 14) and pediatric (n = 2) medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in a fully integrated geograph ...[more]

PMID: 26492196

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to partner with stakeholders to identify gaps in care for persons living with dementia and their family caregivers and from this list, identify priorities for dementia care research.MethodsUsing a community-engaged research approach, a Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC) consisting of diverse membership including persons living with dementia and family caregivers was convened. Through our work with the SAC, along with input from the wider network through a symposium, webinars, and an online learning community, gaps in dementia care and a list of topics for dementia care research was generated. This list was reduced to 46 topics for dementia care research and sent to stakeholders (persons living with dementia, family caregivers, and health/social care professionals in dementia care) to be prioritized by rating each of the 46 topics as "Not so important," "Important," or "Very important." Priorities for dementia care were summarized by frequencies and proportions.ResultsA total of 186 participants completed the survey from August through October 2020, including 23 (12.4%) persons living with dementia, 101 (54.3%) family caregivers, and 62 (33.3%) health/social care professionals. Consistent across stakeholder groups was the focus on research on how best to support families following a diagnosis of dementia. Among persons living with dementia, research focused on support for continuing to live in their own homes was ranked as the highest priority, rated by 91.3% as "Very Important". High priority research areas for family caregivers included interventions to slow cognitive decline (76.3%) as well as non-pharmacological approaches to manage behavioral symptoms (74.7%). The highest priority research topics for health/social care professionals were focused on the diagnosis including benefits of an early diagnosis (71.4%), how best to deliver the diagnosis (70.9%), and supports needed following a diagnosis (78.6%).ConclusionsThis project draws on the strengths of its multi-stakeholder perspective to support patient-centered outcomes research. Findings are intended to inform those who conduct research and those who fund research about which research topics stakeholders believe are most important and thus have greatest potential to improve the quality of life among people living with dementia and their families.

Project description:ObjectiveEmbedding researchers within health systems results in more socially relevant research and more effective uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, the practice of embedded health service research remains poorly understood. We explored and assessed the development of embedded participatory approaches to health service research by a health research team in Kenya highlighting the different ways multiple stakeholders were engaged in a neonatal research study.MethodsWe conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. Data were analysed thematically using both inductive and deductive approaches.SettingOver recent years, the Health Services Unit within the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Nairobi Kenya, has been working closely with organisations and technical stakeholders including, but not limited to, medical and nursing schools, frontline health workers, senior paediatricians, policymakers and county officials, in developing and conducting embedded health research. This involves researchers embedding themselves in the contexts in which they carry out their research (mainly in county hospitals, local universities and other training institutions), creating and sustaining social networks. Researchers collaboratively worked with stakeholders to identify clinical, operational and behavioural issues related to routine service delivery, formulating and exploring research questions to bring change in practice PARTICIPANTS: We purposively selected 14 relevant stakeholders spanning policy, training institutions, healthcare workers, regulatory councils and professional associations.ResultsThe value of embeddedness is highlighted through the description of a recently completed project, Health Services that Deliver for Newborns (HSD-N). We describe how the HSD-N research process contributed to and further strengthened a collaborative research platform and illustrating this project's role in identifying and generating ideas about how to tackle health service delivery problems CONCLUSIONS: We conclude with a discussion about the experiences, challenges and lessons learned regarding engaging stakeholders in the coproduction of research.

Project description:BackgroundDecisions to adopt a particular innovation may vary between stakeholders because individual stakeholders may disagree on the costs and benefits involved. This may translate to disagreement between stakeholders on priorities in the implementation process, possibly explaining the slow diffusion of innovations in health care. In this study, we explore the differences in stakeholder preferences for innovations, and quantify the difference in stakeholder priorities regarding costs and benefits.MethodsThe decision support technique called the analytic hierarchy process was used to quantify the preferences of stakeholders for nine information technology (IT) innovations in hospital care. The selection of the innovations was based on a literature review and expert judgments. Decision criteria related to the costs and benefits of the innovations were defined. These criteria were improvement in efficiency, health gains, satisfaction with care process, and investments required. Stakeholders judged the importance of the decision criteria and subsequently prioritized the selected IT innovations according to their expectations of how well the innovations would perform for these decision criteria.ResultsThe stakeholder groups (patients, nurses, physicians, managers, health care insurers, and policy makers) had different preference structures for the innovations selected. For instance, self-tests were one of the innovations most preferred by health care insurers and managers, owing to their expected positive impacts on efficiency and health gains. However, physicians, nurses and patients strongly doubted the health gains of self-tests, and accordingly ranked self-tests as the least-preferred innovation.ConclusionsThe various stakeholder groups had different expectations of the value of the nine IT innovations. The differences are likely due to perceived stakeholder benefits of each innovation, and less to the costs to individual stakeholder groups. This study provides a first exploratory quantitative insight into stakeholder positions concerning innovation in health care, and presents a novel way to study differences in stakeholder preferences. The results may be taken into account by decision makers involved in the implementation of innovations.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation-STakeholder Engagement Model (I-STEM) in the context of an international, large-scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I-STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process.MethodsIn-depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first- and third-generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method.ResultsWe conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation-related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I-STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes.ConclusionThe I-STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I-STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities.Patient or public contributionPatient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN-Europe at all stages-from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN-Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN-Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits-toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits-toolkit.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify priorities for improving healthcare organization management of patient access to primary care based on prior evidence and a stakeholder panel. BACKGROUND:Studies on healthcare access show its importance for ensuring population health. Few studies show how healthcare organizations can improve access. METHODS:We conducted a modified Delphi stakeholder panel anchored by a systematic review. Panelists (N = 20) represented diverse stakeholder groups including patients, providers, policy makers, purchasers, and payers of healthcare services, predominantly from the Veterans Health Administration. A pre-panel survey addressed over 80 aspects of healthcare organization management of access, including defining access management. Panelists discussed survey-based ratings during a 2-day in-person meeting and re-voted afterward. A second panel process focused on each final priority and developed recommendations and suggestions for implementation. RESULTS:The panel achieved consensus on definitions of optimal access and access management on eight urgent and important priorities for guiding access management improvement, and on 1-3 recommendations per priority. Each recommendation is supported by referenced, panel-approved suggestions for implementation. Priorities address two organizational structure targets (interdisciplinary primary care site leadership; clearly identified group practice management structure); four process improvements (patient telephone access management; contingency staffing; nurse management of demand through care coordination; proactive demand management by optimizing provider visit schedules), and two outcomes (quality of patients' experiences of access; provider and staff morale). Recommendations and suggestions for implementation, including literature references, are summarized in a panelist-approved, ready-to-use tool. CONCLUSIONS:A stakeholder panel informed by a pre-panel systematic review identified eight action-oriented priorities for improving access and recommendations for implementing each priority. The resulting tool is suitable for guiding the VA and other integrated healthcare delivery organizations in assessing and initiating improvements in access management, and for supporting continued research.

Project description:IntroductionWhile the number of women entering medical school now equals or surpasses the number of men, gender equity in medicine has not been achieved. Women continue to be under-represented in leadership roles (eg, deans, medical chairs) and senior faculty positions. In addition, women do not enter medical specialties as often as men, which can have important implications for work environment, reimbursement and the delivery of patient care. Compared with other medical specialties (eg, anaesthesiology, dermatology, etc), critical care medicine is a medical specialty with some of the lowest representation of women. While strategies to improve gender equity in critical care medicine exist in the published literature, efforts to comprehensively synthesise, prioritise and implement solutions have been limited.The objective of this programme of work is to establish priorities for the development and implementation of key strategies to improve the outcomes, well-being and experiences of women in critical care in Canada.Methods and analysisThree phases encompass this programme of work. In phase I, we will catalogue published strategies focused on improving gender inequity across medical specialties through a scoping review. In phase II, we will conduct a modified Delphi consensus process with decision-makers, physicians and researchers to identify key strategies (identified in phase I and proposed by participants in phase II) for improving gender inequity in the specialty of critical care medicine. Finally, in phase III, we will conduct a 1-day stakeholder meeting that engages participants from phase II to build capacity for the development and implementation of top ranked strategies. Data analyses from this programme of work will be both quantitative and qualitative.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed programme of work is a foundational step towards establishing targeted strategies to improve gender inequity in the medical specialty of critical care medicine. Strategies will be prioritised by stakeholders, mapped to preidentified drivers of gender equity in the specialty and be scalable to institutional needs. A final report of our results including the list of top prioritised strategies and implementation objectives will be disseminated to panel participants, critical care leadership teams and major critical care societies who are partners in this work, around the country to facilitate uptake at the local level.The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board has approved this study (REB16-0890).

Dataset Information

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Priorities for Improving the Quality and Value of Critical Care.

Publications

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Priorities for Improving the Quality and Value of Critical Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets