Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers of sociodemographic data collection in Canadian health care settings: a multisite case study evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite growing awareness of the importance of social determinants of health, research remains limited about the implementation of sociodemographic data collection in Canadian health care settings. Little is known about the salient contextual factors that enable or hinder collection and use of social information to improve quality of care in clinical settings. This study examines the perceptions and experiences of managers and care providers to better understand how to support organizational efforts to collect and use sociodemographic data to provide equity-oriented care.

Methods

Case studies of three diverse urban health care settings employed semi-structured individual and group interviews with managers and care providers respectively to explore their experiences with implementation. Data was analyzed separately and in context for each site as part of an individual case study. A thematic analysis of interview transcripts was performed with an inductive approach to coding of segments of the text. Constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were used as an analytical framework to structure the data to support cross case comparisons of facilitators and barriers to implementation across settings.

Results

Several perceived facilitators and barriers to implementation were identified that clustered around three CFIR domains: intervention, inner setting and characteristics of individuals. Macro level (outer setting) factors were relatively unexplored. Sites were motivated by their recognition of need for social information to improve quality of care. Organizational readiness for implementation was demonstrated by priorities that reflected concern for equity in care, leadership support and commitment to an inclusive process for stakeholder engagement. Barriers included perceived relevance of only a subset of sociodemographic questions to service delivery, staff capacity and comfort with data collection as well as adequate resources (funding and time).

Conclusion

Although system level mandates were underexplored, they may accelerate adoption and implementation of sociodemographic data collection in the presence of organizational readiness. Standardized tools integrated into information systems and workflows would support adequately trained personnel. More research is needed to understand important factors in rural health settings and with clinical application to inform care delivery pathways.

SUBMITTER: Williams-Roberts H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6307203 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facilitators and barriers of sociodemographic data collection in Canadian health care settings: a multisite case study evaluation.

Williams-Roberts Hazel H Neudorf Cory C Abonyi Sylvia S Cushon Jennifer J Muhajarine Nazeem N

International journal for equity in health 20181227 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite growing awareness of the importance of social determinants of health, research remains limited about the implementation of sociodemographic data collection in Canadian health care settings. Little is known about the salient contextual factors that enable or hinder collection and use of social information to improve quality of care in clinical settings. This study examines the perceptions and experiences of managers and care providers to better understand how to support ...[more]

PMID: 30591045

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSocial isolation is a significant issue in aged care settings (eg, long-term care (LTC) and hospital) and is associated with adverse outcomes such as reduced well-being and loneliness. Loneliness is linked with depression, anxiety, cognitive decline, weakened immune system, poor physical health, poor quality of life and mortality. The use of robotic assistance may help mitigate social isolation and loneliness. Although telepresence robots have been used in healthcare settings, a comprehensive review of studies focusing on their use in aged care for reducing social isolation requires further investigation. This scoping review will focus on the use of telepresence robots to support social connection of older people in care settings.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. The review team consists of patient partners and family partners, a nurse researcher and a group of students. In the scoping review, we will search the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Google and Google Scholar will be used to search for additional literature. A handsearch will be conducted using the reference lists of included studies to identify additional relevant articles. The scoping review will consider studies of using a telepresence robotic technology with older adults in care settings (ie, LTC and hospital), published in English.Ethics and disseminationSince the methodology of the study consists of collecting data from publicly available articles, it does not require ethics approval. By examining the current state of using telepresence to support older people in care settings, this scoping review can offer useful insight into users' needs (eg, patients' and care providers' needs) and inform future research and practice. We will share the scoping review results through conference presentations and an open access publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid evolution of the epidemiological picture and the recent SARS-COV-2 pandemic has expressed the vulnerabilities of health systems and focuses attention on the population's needs. The nurse's figure in the care teams is universally identified; however, the implementation of the role within some care settings turns out to be complex and challenging. This integrative review aims to identify the barriers and facilitators in implementing the role of the nurse in primary care settings.MethodsAn integrative review was conducted on the Medline and Cinahl databases until 9 June 2020. Qualitative, quantitative, and Mixed-method research studies were selected to identify studies related to the barriers and facilitators of the nurse's role in nursing facilities' primary care. For the extraction of the results, the Consolidating Framework for Research Implementation (CFIR) was used to identify the factors that influence implementation in health care.ResultsFollowing the duplicates' removal, the search identified 18,257 articles, of which 56 were relevant to the inclusion criteria; therefore, they were included in the summary. The selected studies were conducted in thirteen countries, most from Oceania, Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The barriers reported most frequently concern the nursing profession's regulatory and regulatory aspects within the contexts of care, cultural and organizational aspects, training, and the transfer of specific skills, which were previously designated to doctors. The facilitators are mainly linked to the nurse's adaptability to the various contexts of care, recognizing the patient's role, and the desire to develop multidisciplinary and effective working groups to respond to the health needs of the population in primary care contexts.ConclusionThis review highlighted the main barriers and facilitators in implementing the nurse's role in primary care settings. These results offer useful elements for stakeholders to identify effective strategies in preparing programs and activities for implementing the nurse's role, acting on the elements identified as barriers and favouring the aspects that emerge as facilitators.

Project description:BackgroundCare bundles are small sets of evidence-based recommendations, designed to support the implementation of evidence-based best clinical practice. However, there is variation in the design and implementation of care bundles, which may impact on the fidelity of delivery and subsequently their clinical effectiveness.MethodsA scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley framework to identify the literature reporting on the design, implementation and evaluation of care bundles. The Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched for manuscripts published between 2001 and November 2017; hand-searching of references and citations was also undertaken. Data were initially assessed using a quality assessment tool, the Downs and Black checklist, prior to further analysis and narrative synthesis. Implementation strategies were classified using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) criteria.ResultsTwenty-eight thousand six hundred ninety-two publications were screened and 348 articles retrieved in full text. Ninety-nine peer-reviewed quantitative publications were included for data extraction. These consisted of one randomised crossover trial, one randomised cluster trial, one case-control study, 20 prospective cohort studies and 76 non-parallel cohort studies. Twenty-three percent of studies were classified as poor based on Downs and Black checklist, and reporting of implementation strategies lacked structure. Negative associations were found between the number of elements in a bundle and compliance (Spearman's rho = - 0.47, non-parallel cohort and - 0.65, prospective cohort studies), and between the complexity of elements and compliance (p < 0.001, chi-squared = 23.05). Implementation strategies associated with improved compliance included evaluative and iterative approaches, development of stakeholder relationships and education and training strategies.ConclusionCare bundles with a small number of simple elements have better compliance rates. Standardised reporting of implementation strategies may help to implement care bundles into clinical practice with high fidelity.Trial registrationThis review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD 42015029963 in December 2015.

Project description:BackgroundPsychosocial factors are pivotal in recovery after acute orthopedic traumatic injuries. Addressing psychosocial factors is an important opportunity for preventing persistent pain and disability. We aim to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of psychosocial care within outpatient orthopedic trauma settings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor's taxonomy of implementation outcomes, and to provide implementation strategies derived from qualitative data and supplemented by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change.MethodsWe conducted live video qualitative focus groups, exit interviews and individual interviews with stakeholders within 3 geographically diverse level 1 trauma settings (N = 79; 20 attendings, 28 residents, 10 nurses, 13 medical assistants, 5 physical therapists/social workers, and 3 fellows) at 3 trauma centers in Texas, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. We used directed and conventional content analyses to derive information on barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies within 26 CFIR constructs nested within 3 relevant Proctor outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.ResultsStakeholders noted that implementing psychosocial care within their practice can be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. Many perceived integrated psychosocial care as crucial for preventing persistent pain and reducing provider burden, noting they lack the time and specialized training to address patients' psychosocial needs. Providers suggested strategies for integrating psychosocial care within orthopedic settings, including obtaining buy-in from leadership, providing concise and data-driven education to providers, bypassing stigma, and flexibly adapting to fast-paced clinics.ConclusionsResults provide a blueprint for successful implementation of psychosocial care in orthopedic trauma settings, with important implications for prevention of persistent pain and disability.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. AIM:To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING:A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD:A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. RESULTS:In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. CONCLUSION:A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.

Project description:BackgroundDespite recent incentives through Medicare (Australia's universal health insurance scheme) to increase retinal screening rates in primary care, comprehensive diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening has not been reached in Australia. The current study aimed to identify key factors affecting the delivery of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Australian general practices.MethodsA descriptive qualitative study involving in-depth interviews was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020. Using purposive snowballing sampling, 15 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from urban and rural general practices in New South Wales and Western Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data from participants. All interviews were conducted over the phone by one facilitator, and each interview lasted up to 45 min. The Socio-Ecological Model was used to inform the content of the interview topic guides and subsequent data analysis. Recorded data were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify and classify recurrent themes.ResultsOf 15 GPs interviewed, 13 were male doctors, and the mean age was 54.7 ± 15.5 years. Seven participants were practising in urban areas, while eight were practising in regional or remote areas. All participants had access to a direct ophthalmoscope, but none owned retinal cameras. None of the participants reported performing DR screening. Only three participants were aware of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items 12,325 and 12,326 that allow GPs to bill for retinal screening. Seven themes, a combination of facilitators and barriers, emerged from interviews with the GPs. Despite the strong belief in their role in managing chronic diseases, barriers such as costs of retinal cameras, time constraints, lack of skills to make DR diagnosis, and unawareness of Medicare incentives for non-mydriatic retinal photography made it difficult to conduct DR screening in general practice. However, several enabling strategies to deliver DR screening within primary care include increasing GPs' access to continuing professional development, subsidising the cost of retinal cameras, and the need for a champion ace to take the responsibility of retinal photography.ConclusionThis study identified essential areas at the system level that require addressing to promote the broader implementation of DR screening, in particular, a nationwide awareness campaign to maximise the use of MBS items, improve GPs' competency, and subsidise costs of the retinal cameras for small and rural general practices.

Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers of sociodemographic data collection in Canadian health care settings: a multisite case study evaluation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Facilitators and barriers of sociodemographic data collection in Canadian health care settings: a multisite case study evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets