Dataset Information

Advice-seeking during implementation: a network study of clinicians participating in a learning collaborative.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Successful implementation depends on the transfer of knowledge and expertise among clinicians, which can occur when professionals seek advice from one another. This study examines advice-seeking patterns among mental health clinicians participating in learning collaboratives (a multi-component implementation and quality improvement strategy) to implement trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT). We apply transactive memory system theory, which explains how professionals access and retrieve knowledge, to examine factors associated with the evolution of advice-seeking relationships during implementation. Our aim is to unpack learning collaboratives' mechanisms by investigating how and why advice-seeking networks change, which may help us understand how implementation strategies can best target networks. METHODS:Using social network analysis and a pretest-post-test design, we examined patterns in general and treatment-specific advice-seeking among 146 participants (including five clinical experts) from 27 agencies participating in a regional scale-up of TF-CBT. Surveys were administered in-person at the first and last of three in-person learning sessions (10 months apart) that comprise a core component of learning collaboratives. Participants nominated up to five individuals from whom they seek general and treatment-specific advice. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) tested the likelihood of maintaining or forming advice-seeking relationships based on indicators of expertise quality, accessibility, need, and prior advice-seeking relationships. RESULTS:Participants formed or maintained advice-seeking relationships with those who possess perceived expertise (e.g., learning collaborative faculty experts, supervisors, and those with greater field experience than themselves). Participants also tended to seek advice from those within the same organization and with similar disciplinary training, highlighting the importance of expertise accessibility. Prior relationships and network structural features were associated with advice-seeking, indicating that participants built on existing social ties. Advice-seeking did not vary based on participants' role or experience. CONCLUSIONS:Given the importance of accessible clinical expertise and ongoing supervision for delivering treatment with fidelity, learning collaboratives may support implementation by promoting clinicians' awareness of and access to others' expertise, especially those with substantial expertise to share (e.g., faculty experts and supervisors). Future controlled studies are needed to verify the effectiveness of learning collaboratives for building networks that connect clinicians and experts and for improving implementation.

SUBMITTER: Bunger AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6064109 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Advice-seeking during implementation: a network study of clinicians participating in a learning collaborative.

Bunger Alicia C AC Doogan Nathan N Hanson Rochelle F RF Birken Sarah A SA

Implementation science : IS 20180728 1

<h4>Background</h4>Successful implementation depends on the transfer of knowledge and expertise among clinicians, which can occur when professionals seek advice from one another. This study examines advice-seeking patterns among mental health clinicians participating in learning collaboratives (a multi-component implementation and quality improvement strategy) to implement trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT). We apply transactive memory system theory, which explains how professi ...[more]

PMID: 30055629

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcquired brain injuries (ABIs), such as stroke and traumatic brain injury, commonly cause cognitive-communication disorders, in which underlying cognitive difficulties also impair communication. As communication is an exchange with others, close others such as family and friends also experience the impact of cognitive-communication impairment. It is therefore an internationally recommended best practice for speech-language pathologists to provide communication support to both people with ABI and the people who communicate with them. Current research also identifies a need for neurorehabilitation professionals to support digital communication, such as social media use, after ABI. However, with >135 million people worldwide affected by ABI, alternate and supplementary service delivery models are needed to meet these communication needs. The "Social Brain Toolkit" is a novel suite of 3 interventions to deliver communication rehabilitation via the internet. However, digital health implementation is complex, and minimal guidance exists for ABI.ObjectiveThis study aimed to support the implementation of the Social Brain Toolkit by coproducing implementation knowledge with people with ABI, people who communicate with people with ABI, clinicians, and leaders in digital health implementation.MethodsA maximum variation sample (N=35) of individuals with living experience of ABI, close others, clinicians, and digital health implementation leaders participated in an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. Stakeholders quantitatively prioritized 4 of the 7 theoretical domains of the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework as being the most important for Social Brain Toolkit implementation. Qualitative interview and focus group data collection focused on these 4 domains. Data were deductively analyzed against the NASSS framework with stakeholder coauthors to determine implementation considerations and strategies. A collaborative autoethnography of the research was conducted. Interrelationships between considerations and strategies were identified through a post hoc network analysis.ResultsAcross the 4 prioritized domains of "condition," "technology," "value proposition," and "adopters," 48 digital health implementation considerations and 52 tailored developer and clinician implementation strategies were generated. Benefits and challenges of coproduction were identified. The post hoc network analysis revealed 172 unique relationships between the identified implementation considerations and strategies, with user and persona testing and responsive design identified as the potentially most impactful strategies.ConclusionsPeople with ABI, close others, clinicians, and digital health leaders coproduced new knowledge of digital health implementation considerations for adults with ABI and the people who communicate with them, as well as tailored implementation strategies. Complexity-informed network analyses offered a data-driven method to identify the 2 most potentially impactful strategies. Although the study was limited by a focus on 4 NASSS domains and the underrepresentation of certain demographics, the wealth of actionable implementation knowledge produced supports future coproduction of implementation research with mutually beneficial outcomes for stakeholders and researchers.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/35080.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative skills learning in the form of dyad learning compared with individual learning has been shown to lead to non-inferior skills retention and transfer. However, we have limited knowledge on which learning activities improve collaborative skills training and how the number of collaborators may impact skills transfer. We explored the effects of skills training individually, in dyads, triads or tetrads on learning activities during training and on subsequent skills transfer.MethodsIn a randomised, controlled study, participants completed a pre-post-transfer-test set-up in groups of one to four. Participants completed 2 hours of obstetric ultrasound training. In the dyad, triad and tetrad group participants took turns actively handling the ultrasound probe. All performances were rated by two blinded experts using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) scale and a Global Rating Scale (GRS). All training was video recorded, and learning activities were analysed using the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive (ICAP) framework.ResultsOne hundred one participants completed the simulation-based training, and ninety-seven completed the transfer test. Performance scores improved significantly from pre- to post-test for all groups (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.55). However, group size did not affect transfer test performance on OSAUS scores (p = 0.13, ηp2 = 0.06) or GRS scores (p = 0.23, ηp2 = 0.05). ICAP analyses of training activities showed that time spent on non-learning and passive learning activities increased with group size (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.31), whereas time spent on constructive and interactive learning activities was constant between groups compared with singles (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.72).ConclusionCollaborative skills learning in groups of up to four did not impair skills transfer despite less hands-on time. This may be explained by a compensatory shift towards constructive and interactive learning activities that outweigh the effect of shorter hands-on time.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Many organizations rely on quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) to facilitate Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) implementation, and there is a trend toward conducting QIC activities virtually to reduce costs and expand their reach. However, the evidence base for QICs is limited; questions remain about how QICs operate, why they succeed or fail, and how they are experienced by participants. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed participants in an innovative Virtual Collaborative (VC) designed to support PCMH implementation within one Veterans Integrated Service Network, to understand why and for whom the VC was more/less effective and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: This anonymous online survey was designed to assess participants' views on the VC's usefulness, impact, and acceptability, and to explore variations by role, practice setting, prior training, and overall engagement in VC activities. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were 353 primary care staff, including providers, nurses, and support staff. MEASURES/APPROACH: The survey comprised 32 structured and three free-response items. Structured items assessed participation in and perceived usefulness of VC activities; perceived acceptability of the training format; overall perceived impact; and basic demographics. Responses were dichotomized and compared using Chi-square tests. Free-response items inviting constructive criticism of the VC were coded and summarized to identify themes and illustrative quotes. RESULTS: The VC most benefited respondents with prior PCMH training and those who fully participated in VC activities. Respondents especially valued the opportunity to share experiences with other teams. Non-providers and those new to PCMH felt learning content did not meet their needs. Reported barriers to full participation included staffing constraints, insufficient and/or unprotected time, and inadequate leadership support. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers practical lessons for others considering a virtual collaborative model for PCMH spread. Findings contribute to the evidence base for QICs overall and virtual QICs in particular, highlighting the value of seeking input from "the trenches."

Project description:The current study aims to examine the discourse patterns and strategies of advice-seeking and advice-giving through Arabic computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the medical context. The contribution of this study lies in examining and analyzing the discourse patterns of CMC between patients and doctors in Arabic, how these patterns help doctors understand the advice sought and inquiries made by their patients, and how they help patients understand the comments made by their doctors on their inquiries. The data consist of 300 messages categorized into 150 advice-seeking (postings) and 150 advice-response (replies) messages. They were manually collected from a public medical website by copying and pasting them into an Excel spreadsheet for coding and statistical analyses. Two models were used to analyze the speech acts of advice. Morrow's model was used for advice-seeking, while Hinkel's taxonomy was used for advice responses, after some modifications were made to both models. The findings revealed that advice-seeking and advice-response messages had three parts: opening, middle, and closing. The study revealed that both patients and doctors used the opening and closing parts occasionally, unlike the middle part, which was used more often. For advice-seeking, describing the medical problem was the most frequent strategy used by patients when they asked for advice, followed by yes/no questions. These types of strategies were used in advice-seeking more frequently than others. Additionally, it was found that asking yes/no questions and describing the medical problem was the most frequent compound strategy used by patients seeking advice. However, for advice responses, the results revealed that giving clarification/information was the most frequent strategy used by doctors, followed by direct advice. When compared with other types, these two types were used frequently in the advice responses. The results also demonstrated that giving clarification/information and direct advice was the most frequent compound strategy used by doctors in advice responses.

Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision-making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the "prediction model risk of bias assessment" criteria, and it has not been externally validated.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases.MethodsWe followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia.ResultsThe internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data, the model obtained C statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US, and South Korean data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68.ConclusionsOur results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.

Project description:BackgroundIn British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients.MethodsTo understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed.ResultsMost clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team's decisions. Participants' chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information.ConclusionsParticipants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians' concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians' and other stakeholders' concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.

Dataset Information

Advice-seeking during implementation: a network study of clinicians participating in a learning collaborative.

Publications

Advice-seeking during implementation: a network study of clinicians participating in a learning collaborative.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets