Dataset Information

Implementation evaluation and refinement of an intervention to improve blunt chest injury management-A mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims and objectives

To investigate uptake of a Chest Injury Protocol (ChIP), examine factors influencing its implementation and identify interventions for promoting its use.

Background

Failure to treat blunt chest injuries in a timely manner with sufficient analgesia, physiotherapy and respiratory support, can lead to complications such as pneumonia and respiratory failure and/or death.

Design

This is a mixed-methods implementation evaluation study.

Methods

Two methods were used: (i) identification and review of the characteristics of all patients eligible for the ChIP protocol, and (ii) survey of hospital staff opinions mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. The characteristics and treatment received between the groups were compared using the chi-square test or Fischer's exact test for proportions, and the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous data. Quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were coded in NVivo 10 using a coding guide based on the TDF and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Identification of interventions to change target behaviours was sourced from the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 in consultation with stakeholders.

Results

Only 68.4% of eligible patients received ChIP. Fifteen facilitators and 10 barriers were identified to influence the implementation of ChIP in the clinical setting. These themes were mapped to 10 of the 14 TDF domains and corresponded with all nine intervention functions in the BCW. Seven of these intervention functions were selected to address the target behaviours and a multi-faceted relaunch of the revised protocol developed. Following re-launch, uptake increased to 91%.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated how the BCW may be used to revise and improve a clinical protocol in the ED context.

Relevance to clinical practice

Newly implemented clinical protocols should incorporate clinician behaviour change assessment, strategy and interventions. Enhancing the self-efficacy of emergency nurses when performing assessments has the potential to improve patient outcomes and should be included in implementation strategy.

SUBMITTER: Curtis K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6686633 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation evaluation and refinement of an intervention to improve blunt chest injury management-A mixed-methods study.

Curtis Kate K Van Connie C Lam Mary M Asha Stephen S Unsworth Annalise A Clements Alana A Atkins Louise L

Journal of clinical nursing 20170418 23-24

<h4>Aims and objectives</h4>To investigate uptake of a Chest Injury Protocol (ChIP), examine factors influencing its implementation and identify interventions for promoting its use.<h4>Background</h4>Failure to treat blunt chest injuries in a timely manner with sufficient analgesia, physiotherapy and respiratory support, can lead to complications such as pneumonia and respiratory failure and/or death.<h4>Design</h4>This is a mixed-methods implementation evaluation study.<h4>Methods</h4>Two metho ...[more]

PMID: 28252839

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlunt chest injury can lead to significant morbidity and mortality if not treated appropriately. A blunt chest injury care bundle was to be implemented at two sites to guide care.AimTo identify facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a blunt chest injury care bundle and design strategies tailored to promote future implementation.Methods1) A mixed-method survey based on the theoretical domains framework (TDF) was used to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a blunt chest injury care bundle. This survey was distributed to 441 staff from 12 departments across two hospitals. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS and qualitative using inductive content analysis. 2) The quantitative and qualitative results from the survey were integrated and mapped to each of the TDF domains. 3) The facilitators and barriers were evaluated using the Behaviour Change Wheel to extract specific intervention functions, policies, behaviour change techniques and implementation strategies. Each phase was assessed against the Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects or safety and Equity (APEASE) criteria.ResultsOne hundred ninety eight staff completed the survey. All departments surveyed were represented. Nine facilitators and six barriers were identified from eight domains of the TDF. Facilitators (TDF domains) were: understanding evidence-informed patient care and understanding risk factors (Knowledge); patient assessment skills and blunt chest injury management skills (Physical skills); identification with professional role (Professional role and identity); belief of consequences of care bundle (Belief about consequences); provision of training and protocol design (Environmental context and resources); and social supports (Social influences). Barriers were: not understanding the term 'care bundle' (Knowledge); lacking regional analgesia skills (Physical skills); not remembering to follow protocol (Memory, attention, and decision processes); negative emotions relating to new protocols (Emotions); equipment and protocol access (Environmental context and resources). Implementation strategies were videos, education sessions, visual prompt for electronic medical records and change champions.ConclusionsMultiple facilitators and barriers were identified that may affect the implementation of a blunt chest injury care bundle. Implementation strategies developed through this process have been included in a plan for implementation in the emergency departments of two hospitals. Evaluation of the implementation is underway.

Project description:BackgroundBlunt chest injury leads to significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a multidisciplinary chest injury care bundle (ChIP) on patient and health service outcomes. ChIP provides guidance in three key pillars of care for blunt chest injury-respiratory support, analgesia and complication prevention. ChIP was implemented using a multi-faceted implementation plan developed using the Behaviour Change Wheel.MethodsThis controlled pre-and post-test study (two intervention and two non-intervention sites) was conducted from July 2015 to June 2019. The primary outcome measures were unplanned Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions, non-invasive ventilation use and mortality.ResultsThere were 1790 patients included. The intervention sites had a 58% decrease in non-invasive ventilation use in the post- period compared to the pre-period (95% CI 0.18-0.96). ChIP was associated with 90% decreased odds of unplanned ICU admissions (95% CI 0.04-0.29) at the intervention sites compared to the control groups in the post- period. There was no significant change in mortality. There were higher odds of health service team reviews (surgical OR 6.6 (95% CI 4.61-9.45), physiotherapy OR 2.17 (95% CI 1.52-3.11), ICU doctor OR 6.13 (95% CI 3.94-9.55), ICU liaison OR 55.75 (95% CI 17.48-177.75), pain team OR 8.15 (95% CI 5.52 --12.03), analgesia (e.g. patient controlled analgesia OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.64-3.94) and regional analgesia OR 8.8 (95% CI 3.39-22.79), incentive spirometry OR 8.3 (95% CI 4.49-15.37) and, high flow nasal oxygen OR 22.1 (95% CI 12.43-39.2) in the intervention group compared to the control group in the post- period.ConclusionThe implementation of a chest injury care bundle using behaviour change theory was associated with a sustained improvement in evidence-based practice resulting in reduced unplanned ICU admissions and non-invasive ventilation requirement.Trial registrationANZCTR: ACTRN12618001548224, approved 17/09/2018.

Project description:IntroductionLumbar radicular syndrome (LRS) can be a painful and debilitating condition. The optimum management strategies and their timing remain elusive despite extensive research. Surgery provides good short-term outcomes but has concomitant risks and costs. Physiotherapy is commonly practised for patients with LRS but its effects remain equivocal and there is a lack of consensus on the type, duration and timing of physiotherapy intervention. There is a lack of high-quality evidence into new and innovative management strategies and the timings of those strategies for LRS. This pilot trial is an essential preliminary to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early physiotherapy intervention for patients with LRS. The study will test the protocol, the intervention, the use of outcome measures and the ability to set-up and run the trial to enable refinement of a future definitive RCT.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed-methods study encompassing an external pilot RCT with integrated qualitative interviews with patients, clinicians and other key stakeholders. 80 patients will be recruited from primary care and randomised, after consent into 1 of 2 groups. Both groups will receive individually tailored, goal orientated physiotherapy. The usual care group will begin their physiotherapy 6 weeks after randomisation and the intervention group at 2 weeks after randomisation. Outcome measures will primarily be feasibility parameters including the ability to recruit and retain patients and to deliver the intervention. Data will be collected at baseline, and 6, 12 and 26 weeks following randomisation.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received favourable ethical review from the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (EoSRES) on the 20 August 2015 (15/ES/0130). Recruitment began on the 1 March 2016 and is expected to close in January 2017. Data collection is anticipated to be complete in July 2017. The study results will be made available to participants, clinicians involved in the study and the wider clinical community through publication in a peer reviewed journal and at conference presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 25018352, Pre-results; Clinical Trials.Gov: NCT02618278 Document version V1.1 23.9.2016.

Project description:ObjectivesParent carers of children with special educational needs or disability are at risk of poorer mental and physical health. In response to these needs, we codeveloped the 'Healthy Parent Carers' (HPC) programme. This study examined the views and experiences of participants in the HPC feasibility trial to inform programme refinement.Intervention, setting and participantsHPC is a peer-led group-based intervention (supported by online materials) for primary carers of disabled children, encouraging behaviours linked with health and well-being. It was delivered by two lead and six assistant peer facilitators in six community sites (one lead and one assistant per group) in South West England over six or 12 sessions. Control participants had online materials only. The trial involved 47 intervention and 45 control parent carers (97% female and 97% white) and eight facilitators (one male).DesignA preplanned mixed methods process evaluation using questionnaires and checklists (during and after the intervention), qualitative interviews with participants after intervention (n=18) and a focus group with facilitators after trial.ResultsHPC was highly acceptable to participants and facilitators and experiences were very positive. Participants reported that the programme increased awareness of what parent carers could and could not change and their self-efficacy to engage in health-promoting behaviours. The intended mechanisms of action (social identification and peer support) matched participants' expectations and experiences. Control participants found the online-only programme flexible but isolating, as there were no opportunities to share ideas and problem solve with peers, the key function of the programme. Areas for improvement were identified for programme content, facilitator training and delivery.ConclusionHPC was acceptable, well received and offers considerable potential to improve the health of parent carers. Under the pandemic, the challenge going forward is how best to maintain reach and fidelity to function while delivering a more virtual programme.Trial registration numberISRCTN151144652.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of implementing a self-management intervention to improve mobility in the community for stroke survivors.MethodsA two-phase sequential mixed methods design was used (a pilot randomised controlled trial and focus groups). Participants were adult stroke survivors within six months post discharge from hospital with functional and cognitive capacity for self-management. The intervention included education sessions, goal setting and action planning, group sessions, self-monitoring and follow up. The control group received usual care and both groups enrolled for 3 months in the study. Feasibility outcomes (recruitment and retention rates, randomisation and blinding, adherence to the intervention, collection of outcome measures, and the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention). Participants assessed at baseline, 3 months and 6 months for functional mobility and walking, self-efficacy, goal attainment, cognitive ability, and general health. A descriptive analysis was done for quantitative data and content analysis for the qualitative data. Findings of quantitative and qualitative data were integrated to present the final results of the study.ResultsTwenty-four participants were recruited and randomised into two groups (12 each). It was feasible to recruit from hospital and community and to deliver the intervention remotely. Randomisation and blinding were successful. Participants were retained (83%) at 3 months and (79.2%) at 6 months assessments. Adherence to the intervention varied due to multiple factors. Focus groups discussed participants' motivations for joining the programme, their perspectives on the intervention (fidelity and acceptability) and methodology, perceived improvements in mobility, facilitators and challenges for self-management, and suggestions for improvement.ConclusionThe self-management intervention seems feasible for implementation for stroke survivors in the community. Participants appreciated the support provided and perceived improvement in their mobility. The study was not powered enough to draw a conclusion about the efficacy of the program and a future full-scale study is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundManagers and professionals in health and social care are required to implement evidence-based methods. Despite this, they generally lack training in implementation. In clinical settings, implementation is often a team effort, so it calls for team training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Building Implementation Capacity (BIC) intervention that targets teams of professionals, including their managers.MethodsA non-randomized design was used, with two intervention cases (each consisting of two groups). The longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation included pre-post and workshop-evaluation questionnaires, and interviews following Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation framework. The intervention was delivered in five workshops, using a systematic implementation method with exercises and practical working materials. To improve transfer of training, the teams' managers were included. Practical experiences were combined with theoretical knowledge, social interactions, reflections, and peer support.ResultsOverall, the participants were satisfied with the intervention (first level), and all groups increased their self-rated implementation knowledge (second level). The qualitative results indicated that most participants applied what they had learned by enacting new implementation behaviors (third level). However, they only partially applied the implementation method, as they did not use the planned systematic approach. A few changes in organizational results occurred (fourth level).ConclusionsThe intervention had positive effects with regard to the first two levels of the evaluation model; that is, the participants were satisfied with the intervention and improved their knowledge and skills. Some positive changes also occurred on the third level (behaviors) and fourth level (organizational results), but these were not as clear as the results for the first two levels. This highlights the fact that further optimization is needed to improve transfer of training when building teams' implementation capacity. In addition to considering the design of such interventions, the organizational context and the participants' characteristics may also need to be considered to maximize the chances that the learned skills will be successfully transferred to behaviors.

Project description:Background: There is a lack of evidence concerning the effective implementation of strategies for stroke prevention and management, particularly in resource-limited settings. A primary-care-based integrated mobile health intervention (SINEMA intervention) has been implemented and evaluated via a 1-year-long cluster-randomized controlled trial. This study reports the findings from the trial implementation and process evaluation that investigate the implementation of the intervention and inform factors that may influence the wider implementation of the intervention in the future. Methods: We developed an evaluation framework by employing both the RE-AIM framework and the MRC process evaluation framework to describe the implementation indicators, related enablers and barriers, and illustrate some potential impact pathways that may influence the effectiveness of the intervention in the trial. Quantitative data were collected from surveys and extracted from digital health monitoring systems. In addition, we conducted quarterly in-depth interviews with stakeholders in order to understand barriers and enablers of program implementation and effectiveness. Quantitative data analysis and thematic qualitative data analysis were applied, and the findings were synthesized based on the evaluation framework. Results: The SINEMA intervention was successfully implemented in 25 rural villages, reached 637 patients with stroke in rural Northern China during the 12 months of the trial. Almost 90% of the participants received all follow-up visits per protocol, and about half of the participants received daily voice messages. The majority of the intervention components were adopted by village doctors with some adaptation made. The interaction between human-delivered and technology-enabled components reinforced the program implementation and effectiveness. However, characteristics of the participants, doctor-patient relationships, and the healthcare system context attributed to the variation of program implementation and effectiveness. Conclusion: A comprehensive evaluation of program implementation demonstrates that the SINEMA program was well implemented in rural China. Findings from this research provide additional information for program adaptation, which shed light on the future program scale-up. The study also demonstrates the feasibility of combining RE-AIM and MRC process evaluation frameworks in process and implementation evaluation in trials. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03185858.

Dataset Information

Implementation evaluation and refinement of an intervention to improve blunt chest injury management-A mixed-methods study.

Aims and objectives

Background

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Relevance to clinical practice

Publications

Implementation evaluation and refinement of an intervention to improve blunt chest injury management-A mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets