Dataset Information

Adapting rapid assessment procedures for implementation research using a team-based approach to analysis: a case example of patient quality and safety interventions in the ICU.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Innovations to improve quality and safety in healthcare are increasingly complex, targeting multiple disciplines and organizational levels, and often requiring significant behavior change by those delivering care. Learning health systems must tackle the crucial task of understanding the implementation and effectiveness of complex interventions, but may be hampered in their efforts by limitations in study design imposed by business-cycle timelines and implementation into fast-paced clinical environments. Rapid assessment procedures are a pragmatic option for producing timely, contextually rich evaluative information about complex interventions implemented into dynamic clinical settings. METHODS:We describe our adaptation of rapid assessment procedures and introduce a rapid team-based analysis process using an example of an evaluation of an intensive care unit (ICU) redesign initiative aimed at improving patient safety in four academic medical centers across the USA. Steps in our approach included (1) iteratively working with stakeholders to develop evaluation questions; (2) integration of implementation science frameworks into field guides and analytic tools; (3) selecting and training a multidisciplinary site visit team; (4) preparation and trust building for 2-day site visits; (5) engaging sites in a participatory approach to data collection; (6) rapid team analysis and triangulation of data sources and methods using a priori charts derived from implementation frameworks; and (7) validation of findings with sites. RESULTS:We used the rapid assessment approach at each of the four ICU sites to evaluate the implementation of the sites' innovations. Though the ICU projects all included three common components, they were individually developed to suit the local context and had mixed implementation outcomes. We generated in-depth case summaries describing the overall implementation process for each site; implementation barriers and facilitators for all four sites are presented. One of the site case summaries is presented as an example of findings generated using the method. CONCLUSIONS:A rapid team-based approach to qualitative analysis using charts and team discussion using validation techniques, such as member-checking, can be included as part of rapid assessment procedures. Our work demonstrates the value of including rapid assessment procedures for implementation research when time and resources are limited.

SUBMITTER: Holdsworth LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7036173 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adapting rapid assessment procedures for implementation research using a team-based approach to analysis: a case example of patient quality and safety interventions in the ICU.

Holdsworth Laura M LM Safaeinili Nadia N Winget Marcy M Lorenz Karl A KA Lough Mary M Asch Steve S Malcolm Elizabeth E

Implementation science : IS 20200222 1

<h4>Background</h4>Innovations to improve quality and safety in healthcare are increasingly complex, targeting multiple disciplines and organizational levels, and often requiring significant behavior change by those delivering care. Learning health systems must tackle the crucial task of understanding the implementation and effectiveness of complex interventions, but may be hampered in their efforts by limitations in study design imposed by business-cycle timelines and implementation into fast-p ...[more]

PMID: 32087724

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: A rigorous approach is needed to inform rapid adaptation and optimisation of behavioral interventions in evolving public health contexts, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. This helps ensure that interventions are relevant, persuasive, and feasible while remaining evidence-based. This paper provides a set of iterative methods to rapidly adapt and optimize an intervention during implementation. These methods are demonstrated through the example of optimizing an effective online handwashing intervention called Germ Defense. Methods: Three revised versions of the intervention were rapidly optimized and launched within short timeframes of 1-2 months. Optimisations were informed by: regular stakeholder engagement; emerging scientific evidence, and changing government guidance; rapid qualitative research (telephone think-aloud interviews and open-text surveys), and analyses of usage data. All feedback was rapidly collated, using the Table of Changes method from the Person-Based Approach to prioritize potential optimisations in terms of their likely impact on behavior change. Written feedback from stakeholders on each new iteration of the intervention also informed specific optimisations of the content. Results: Working closely with clinical stakeholders ensured that the intervention was clinically accurate, for example, confirming that information about transmission and exposure was consistent with evidence. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors identified important clarifications to intervention content, such as whether Covid-19 can be transmitted via air as well as surfaces, and ensured that information about difficult behaviors (such as self-isolation) was supportive and feasible. Iterative updates were made in line with emerging evidence, including changes to the information about face-coverings and opening windows. Qualitative research provided insights into barriers to engaging with the intervention and target behaviors, with open-text surveys providing a useful supplement to detailed think-aloud interviews. Usage data helped identify common points of disengagement, which guided decisions about optimisations. The Table of Changes was modified to facilitate rapid collation and prioritization of multiple sources of feedback to inform optimisations. Engagement with PPI informed the optimisation process. Conclusions: Rapid optimisation methods of this kind may in future be used to help improve the speed and efficiency of adaptation, optimization, and implementation of interventions, in line with calls for more rapid, pragmatic health research methods.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the widely recognised importance of cultural adaptation to increase the effectiveness of psychological interventions, there is little guidance on its process. Developed based on existing theory, we applied a four-step process to culturally adapt a low-intensity psychological intervention for use in humanitarian settings.MethodsThe four-step process was applied to adapt a WHO low-intensity psychological intervention (i.e. Problem Management Plus, or PM+) for use with displaced Venezuelans and Colombians in Colombia. First, a rapid desk review was used as an (1) information gathering tool to identify local population characteristics. Next, the results were taken forward for the (2) formulation of adaptation hypotheses, whereby PM+ protocols were screened to identify components for adaptation, drawing on the Ecological Validity Model. Third, the elements flagged for adaptation were taken forward for (3) local consultation to firstly, verify the components identified for adaptation, to identify other areas in need of adaptation, and thirdly, to adapt the intervention protocols. Finally, the adapted intervention protocols were reviewed through (4) external evaluations with local experts.ResultsThe information gathering phase yielded key information on the socioeconomic aspects of the groups targeted for intervention, the availability and need for mental health and psychosocial support, and existing barriers to accessing care. The adaptation hypotheses phase further identified the need for clearer explanations of key concepts, the need for sensitive topics to match local attitudes (e.g., domestic violence, thoughts of suicide), and the identification of culturally appropriate social supports. Building on these first two phases, local consultation subsequently resulted in revised PM+ protocols. The adapted protocols differed from the original format in their focus on the problems unique to these population groups, the way that psychological distress is expressed in this context, and the inclusion of locally available supports. The results of the external evaluation supported the adaptations made to the protocols.ConclusionThe proposed four-step process offers a useful guide for how to adapt low-intensity psychological intervention within humanitarian settings. Despite some limitations, we show that even when time and resources are scarce it is possible and necessary to culturally adapt psychological interventions. We invite further testing, replication, and improvements to this methodology.

Project description:BackgroundQualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately "coded" notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor.ResultsCohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches.ConclusionOur rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR.

Dataset Information

Adapting rapid assessment procedures for implementation research using a team-based approach to analysis: a case example of patient quality and safety interventions in the ICU.

Publications

Adapting rapid assessment procedures for implementation research using a team-based approach to analysis: a case example of patient quality and safety interventions in the ICU.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets