Dataset Information

Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

A patient safety intervention was tested in a 33-ward randomised controlled trial. No statistically significant difference between intervention and control wards was found. We conducted a process evaluation of the trial and our aim in this paper is to understand staff engagement across the 17 intervention wards.

Design

Large qualitative process evaluation of the implementation of a patient safety intervention.

Setting and participants

National Health Service staff based on 17 acute hospital wards located at five hospital sites in the North of England.

Data

We concentrate on three sources here: (1) analysis of taped discussion between ward staff during action planning meetings; (2) facilitators' field notes and (3) follow-up telephone interviews with staff focusing on whether action plans had been achieved. The analysis involved the use of pen portraits and adaptive theory.

Findings

First, there were palpable differences in the ways that the 17 ward teams engaged with the key components of the intervention. Five main engagement typologies were evident across the life course of the study: consistent, partial, increasing, decreasing and disengaged. Second, the intensity of support for the intervention at the level of the organisation does not predict the strength of engagement at the level of the individual ward team. Third, the standardisation of facilitative processes provided by the research team does not ensure that implementation standardisation of the intervention occurs by ward staff.

Conclusions

A dilution of the intervention occurred during the trial because wards engaged with Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) in divergent ways, despite the standardisation of key components. Facilitative processes were not sufficiently adequate to enable intervention wards to successfully engage with PRASE components.

SUBMITTER: Sheard L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5541636 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation.

Sheard Laura L Marsh Claire C O'Hara Jane J Armitage Gerry G Wright John J Lawton Rebecca R

BMJ open 20170713 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>A patient safety intervention was tested in a 33-ward randomised controlled trial. No statistically significant difference between intervention and control wards was found. We conducted a process evaluation of the trial and our aim in this paper is to understand staff engagement across the 17 intervention wards.<h4>Design</h4>Large qualitative process evaluation of the implementation of a patient safety intervention.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>National Health Service staf ...[more]

PMID: 28710206

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:To explore the extent to which a checklist designed to support patient safety in hospital Emergency Departments was recognised and used by staff. BACKGROUND:Patient crowding in UK Emergency Departments makes it difficult for staff to monitor all patients for signs of clinical deterioration. An Emergency Department Safety Checklist was developed at a UK hospital to ensure patients are regularly monitored. It was subsequently implemented in six hospitals and recommended for use across the National Health Service in England. METHODS:This was a qualitative study in two UK hospital Emergency Departments. Data collection consisted of sixty-six hours of nonparticipant observation and interviews with twenty-six staff. Observations were sampled across different days and times. Interviews sampled a range of staff. Data were analysed thematically. The study was undertaken in accordance with COREQ guidelines. RESULTS:Staff described the Emergency Department Safety Checklist as a useful prompt and reminder for monitoring patients' vital signs and other aspects of care. It was also reported as effective in communicating patient care status to other staff. However, completing the checklist was also described as a task which could be overlooked during busy periods. During implementation, the checklist was promoted to staff in ways that obscured its core function of maintaining patient safety. CONCLUSIONS:The Emergency Department Safety Checklist can support staff in maintaining patient safety. However, it was not fully recognised by staff as a core component of everyday clinical practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE:The Emergency Department Safety Checklist is a response to an overcrowded environment. To realise the potential of the checklist, emergency departments should take the following steps during implementation: (a) focus on the core function of clinical safety, (b) fully integrate the checklist into the existing workflow and (c) employ a departmental team-based approach to implementation and training.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to: (1) understand the context for delivering a trauma vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention; (2) identify potential barriers and enablers to the implementation of a VR intervention post-trauma.DesignQualitative study. Data were collected in person or via phone using different methods: 38 semistructured interviews, 11 informal 'walk-through care pathways' interviews, 5 focus groups (n=25), 5 codesign workshops (n=43). Data were thematically analysed using the framework approach, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.SettingStakeholders recruited across five UK major trauma networks.ParticipantsA variety of stakeholders were recruited (n=117) including trauma survivors, rehabilitation physicians, therapists, psychologists, trauma coordinators and general practitioners. We recruited 32 service users (trauma survivors or carers) and 85 service providers.ResultsThere were several issues associated with implementing a trauma VR intervention including: culture within healthcare/employing organisations; extent to which healthcare systems were networked with other organisations; poor transition between different organisations; failure to recognise VR as a priority; external policies and funding. Some barriers were typical implementation issues (eg, funding, policies, openness to change). This study further highlighted the challenges associated with implementing a complex intervention like VR (eg, inadequate networking/communication, poor service provision, perceived VR priority). Our intervention was developed to overcome these barriers through adapting a therapist training package, and by providing early contact with patient/employer, a psychological component alongside occupational therapy, case coordination/central point of contact, and support crossing sector boundaries (eg, between health/employment/welfare).ConclusionsFindings informed the implementation of our VR intervention within the complex trauma pathway. Although we understand how to embed it within this context, the success of its implementation needs to be measured as part of a process evaluation in a future trial.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Global evidence suggests a range of benefits for introducing electronic health record (EHR) systems to improve patient care. However, implementing EHR within healthcare organisations is complex and, in the United Kingdom (UK), uptake has been slow. More research is needed to explore factors influencing successful implementation. This study explored staff expectations for change and outcome following procurement of a commercial EHR system by a large academic acute NHS hospital in the UK. METHODS:Qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 members of hospital staff who represented a variety of user groups across different specialities within the hospital. The four components of Normalisation Process Theory (Coherence, Cognitive participation, Collective action and Reflexive monitoring) provided a theoretical framework to interpret and report study findings. RESULTS:Health professionals had a common understanding for the rationale for EHR implementation (Coherence). There was variation in willingness to engage with and invest time into EHR (Cognitive participation) at an individual, professional and organisational level. Collective action (whether staff feel able to use the EHR) was influenced by context and perceived user-involvement in EHR design and planning of the implementation strategy. When appraising EHR (Reflexive monitoring), staff anticipated short and long-term benefits. Staff perceived that quality and safety of patient care would be improved with EHR implementation, but that these benefits may not be immediate. Some staff perceived that use of the system may negatively impact patient care. The findings indicate that preparedness for EHR use could mitigate perceived threats to the quality and safety of care. CONCLUSIONS:Health professionals looked forward to reaping the benefits from EHR use. Variations in level of engagement suggest early components of the implementation strategy were effective, and that more work was needed to involve users in preparing them for use. A clearer understanding as to how staff groups and services differentially interact with the EHR as they go about their daily work was required. The findings may inform other hospitals and healthcare systems on actions that can be taken prior to EHR implementation to reduce concerns for quality and safety of patient care and improve the chance of successful implementation.

Project description:BackgroundQualitative data are crucial for capturing implementation processes, and thus necessary for understanding implementation trial outcomes. Typical methods for capturing such data include observations, focus groups, and interviews. Yet little consideration has been given to how such methods create interactions between researchers and study participants, which may affect participants' engagement, and thus implementation activities and study outcomes. In the context of a clinical trial, we assessed whether and how ongoing telephone check-ins to collect data about implementation activities impacted the quality of collected data, and participants' engagement in study activities.MethodsResearchers conducted regular phone check-ins with clinic staff serving as implementers in an implementation study. Approximately 1 year into this trial, 19 of these study implementers were queried about the impact of these calls on study engagement and implementation activities. The two researchers who collected implementation process data through phone check-ins with the study implementers were also interviewed about their perceptions of the impact of the check-ins.ResultsStudy implementers' assessment of the check-ins' impact fell into three categories: (1) the check-ins had no effect on implementation activities, (2) the check-ins served as a reminder about study participation (without relating a clear impact on implementation activities), and (3) the check-ins caused changes in implementation activities. The researchers similarly perceived that the phone check-ins served as reminders and encouraged some implementers' engagement in implementation activities; their ongoing nature also created personal connections with study implementers that may have impacted implementation activities. Among some study implementers, anticipation of the check-in calls also improved their ability to recount implementation activities and positively affected quality of the data collected.ConclusionThese results illustrate the potential impact of qualitative data collection on implementation activities during implementation science trials. Mitigating such effects may prove challenging, but acknowledging these consequences-or even embracing them, perhaps by designing data collection methods as implementation strategies-could enhance scientific rigor. This work is presented to stimulate debate about the complexities involved in capturing data on implementation processes using common qualitative data collection methods.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.

Project description:ObjectivesHealth promotion is on the global agenda. The risks targeted include smoking, hazardous alcohol consumption, nutrition and insufficient physical activity. Implementation of clinical health promotion, however, remains a major challenge. While several processes, models and frameworks for strategic implementation exist, very few have been tested in randomized designs. Testing a strategic implementation process for clinical health promotion was only recently attempted via a randomized clinical trial on the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals Recognition Process. The randomized clinical trial showed that the process improved central parts of implementation. To complement these findings, this nested qualitative study aimed to explore experiences and perceptions of staff and managers, who had completed the process, and generate hypotheses for improvements.MethodsWe interviewed a purposeful sample of 45 key informants from four countries, who worked at clinical departments and had undertaken the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals implementation process. The informants included 14 managers, 14 medical doctors, 13 nurses and 4 other clinical staff. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and an inductive approach to coding and categorization supported by QSR NVivo.ResultsThe informants' experiences and perceptions centered around four global themes concerning (1) awareness, cultural re-orientation and integration; (2) learnings; (3) normalization and legitimacy and (4) a more evidence-based, structured and systematic approach to clinical health promotion. Informants were positive toward the implementation process, although it was sometimes challenging. The suggested improvements to increase acceptability related to the patient survey, time consumption, translation, tailoring to local circumstances and in-advance training.ConclusionsManagers and staff were positive toward the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals process, which was perceived to bring about positive changes and learnings. The findings also suggest that the implementation process may be improved by minor adjustments to process elements and design. It is our recommendation to use the process in clinical departments to further implementation of clinical health promotion.

Project description:The surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) was introduced in 2008 to improve teamwork and reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with surgery. Although mandated in many health care institutions around the world, challenges in implementation of the SSC continue. To use Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to help understand how/why implementation of a complex intervention coined Pass The Baton (PTB) could help explain what facets of the Surgical Safety Checklist use led to its' integration in practice, while others were not.A longitudinal multi-method study using survey and interviews was undertaken. Implementation of PTB involved; change champions, audit and feedback, education and prompts. Following implementation, surgical teams were surveyed using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) and subsequently interviewed to explore the impact of PTB on their use of the checklist at 6 and 12 months respectively. Respondents' self-reported perceptions of implementation of PTB was explained using the four NPT constructs; coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were coded inductively and content analysed using a framework derived from NPT.The NoMAD survey response rate was 59/150 (39.3%). Many (45/59, 77.6%) survey respondents saw the value in PTB, while 50/59 (86.2%) would continue to use it; 45/59 (77.6%) believed that PTB could easily be integrated into existing workflows, and 48/59 (82.8%) thought that feedback could improve PTB in the future. A total of 8 interviews were completed with 26 surgical team members. Nurses and physicians held mixed views towards coherence while buy-in and participation relied on individuals' investment in the implementation process and the ability to modify PTB. Participants generally recognised the benefit and value of using PTB in the ongoing implementation the checklist.Workarounds and flexible co-construction in implementation designed to improve team communications in surgery may facilitate their normalisation in practice.

Project description:BackgroundNormalisation process theory (NPT) provides researchers with a set of tools to support the understanding of the implementation, normalisation and sustainment of an intervention in practice. Previous reviews of published research have explored NPT's use in the implementation processes of healthcare interventions. However, its utility in intervention research, specifically in orthopaedic and musculoskeletal interventions, remains unclear. The aim of this review is to explore how NPT (including extended NPT, ENPT) has been used in orthopaedic/musculoskeletal intervention research.MethodsA qualitative systematic review was conducted. Two bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science) and a search engine (Google Scholar) were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles citing key papers outlining the development of NPT, related methods, tools or the web-based toolkit. We included studies of any method, including protocols, and did not exclude based on published language. A data extraction tool was developed, and data were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsCitation searches, of the 12 key studies, revealed 10,420 citations. Following duplicate removal, title, abstract and full-text screening, 14 papers from 12 studies were included. There were 8 key findings assessed against GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). Five were of high confidence supporting NPT/ENPT's use in the implementation process for interventions targeting a range of MSK/orthopaedic conditions. NPT/ENPT offers a useful analytical lens to focus attention and consider implementation factors robustly. There is limited evidence for the selection of NPT/ENPT and for the use of the Normalisation Measure Development instrument. Three findings of moderate confidence suggest that coherence is seen as a fundamental initial step in implementation, there is limited evidence that study population limits NPT's utility and the application of ENPT may pose a challenge to researchers.ConclusionThis review demonstrates NPT's utility in supporting intervention implementation for orthopaedic and musculoskeletal conditions. We have theorised the benefits ENPT offers to intervention development and refinement and recommend future researchers consider its use. We also encourage future researchers to offer clear justification for NPT's use in their methodology.Trial registrationThe review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022358558).

Project description:BackgroundThe Implicit Learning in Stroke study was a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, investigating the use of different motor learning strategies in acute stroke rehabilitation. Participating Stroke Units (n = 8) were from the South East/West regions of the UK, with the experimental intervention (implicit learning) being delivered by clinical teams. It required therapists to change how they gave instructions and feedback to patients during rehabilitation. This paper reports the processes underpinning implementation of the implicit learning intervention. The evaluation aimed to i) understand how therapists made sense of, engaged with and interpreted the effects of the intervention; ii) compare this to the experience reported by patients; iii) extrapolate learning of broader relevance to the design and conduct of research involving complex interventions in stroke rehabilitation.MethodsQualitative evaluation, with data collected through focus groups with clinical staff (n = 20) and semi structured interviews with people with stroke (n = 19). Mixed inductive and theory driven analysis, underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory.ResultsHow therapists made sense of and experienced the intervention impacted how it was implemented. The intervention was delivered by individual therapists, and was influenced by their individual values, beliefs and concerns. However, how teams worked together to build a shared (team) understanding, also played a key role. Teams with a more "flexible" interpretation, reported the view that the intervention could have benefits in a wide range of scenarios. Those with a more fixed, "rule based" interpretation, found it harder to implement, and perceived the benefits to be more limited. Therapists' concerns that the intervention may impair therapeutic relationships and patient learning were not reflected in how patients experienced it.ConclusionsChanging practice, whether in a research study or in the "real world", is complex. Understanding the process of implementation is crucial to effective research delivery. Implementation frameworks facilitate understanding, and subsequently the systematic and iterative development of strategies for this to be addressed. How teams (rather than individuals) work together is central to how complex interventions are understood and implemented. It is possible that new complex interventions work best in contexts where there are 'flexible' cultures. Researchers should consider, and potentially measure this, before they can effectively implement and evaluate an intervention.Trial registrationClinical Trials - NCT03792126.

Project description:BackgroundFrailty is seen across various health and social care settings. However, little is known about how healthcare professionals, particularly those who provide care for older adults living in the community view frailty. There is also a dearth of information about the extent to which a shared understanding of frailty exists across the various disciplines of care. Such an understanding is crucial across care professionals as it ensures consistent assessment of frailty and facilitates interdisciplinary working/collaboration which is a key component in the management of frailty. This study aimed to explore: (i) how community care staff from various specialties viewed frailty; (ii) whether they had a shared understanding; and (iii) how they assessed frailty in everyday practice.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 community care staff from seven specialties, namely: healthcare assistants, therapy assistants, psychiatric nurses, general nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and social workers, recruited from four neighbourhood teams across Cambridgeshire, England. Interviews were analysed thematically.ResultsThere was a shared narrative among participants that frailty is an umbrella term that encompasses interacting physical, mental health and psychological, social, environmental, and economic factors. However, various specialities emphasised the role of specific facets of the frailty umbrella. The assessment and management of frailty was said to require a holistic approach facilitated by interdisciplinary working. Participants voiced a need for interdisciplinary training on frailty, and frailty tools that facilitate peer-learning, a shared understanding of frailty, and consistent assessment of frailty within and across specialities.ConclusionsThese findings underscore the need to: (i) move beyond biomedical descriptions of frailty; (ii) further explore the interacting nature of the various components of the frailty umbrella, particularly the role of modifiable factors such as psychological and socioeconomic resilience; (iii) care for frail older adults using holistic, interdisciplinary approaches; and (iv) promote interdisciplinary training around frailty and frailty tools to facilitate a shared understanding and consistent assessment of frailty within and across specialities.

Dataset Information

Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation.

Objectives

Design

Setting and participants

Data

Findings

Conclusions

Publications

Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets