Dataset Information

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change. METHODS:This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers' shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3?years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding. RESULTS:Five community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change. CONCLUSION:This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.

SUBMITTER: Bunce AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7528604 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial.

Bunce Arwen E AE Gruß Inga I Davis James V JV Cowburn Stuart S Cohen Deborah D Oakley Jee J Gold Rachel R

Implementation science : IS 20201001 1

<h4>Background</h4>Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a seconda ...[more]

PMID: 32998750

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany large-scale cardiovascular clinical trials are plagued with escalating costs and low enrollment. Implementing a computable phenotype, which is a set of executable algorithms, to identify a group of clinical characteristics derivable from electronic health records or administrative claims records, is essential to successful recruitment in large-scale pragmatic clinical trials. This methods paper provides an overview of the development and implementation of a computable phenotype in ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: a Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness)-a pragmatic, randomized, open-label clinical trial testing the optimal dose of aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events.Methods and resultsA multidisciplinary team developed and tested the computable phenotype to identify adults ≥18 years of age with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without safety concerns around using aspirin and meeting trial eligibility criteria. Using the computable phenotype, investigators identified over 650 000 potentially eligible patients from the 40 participating sites from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network-a network of Clinical Data Research Networks, Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Health Plan Research Networks. Leveraging diverse recruitment methods, sites enrolled 15 076 participants from April 2016 to June 2019. During the process of developing and implementing the ADAPTABLE computable phenotype, several key lessons were learned. The accuracy and utility of a computable phenotype are dependent on the quality of the source data, which can be variable even with a common data model. Local validation and modification were required based on site factors, such as recruitment strategies, data quality, and local coding patterns. Sustained collaboration among a diverse team of researchers is needed during computable phenotype development and implementation.ConclusionsThe ADAPTABLE computable phenotype served as an efficient method to recruit patients in a multisite pragmatic clinical trial. This process of development and implementation will be informative for future large-scale, pragmatic clinical trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Project description:BackgroundSelecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. We are drawing on data collected during the DISGO study to reflect on barriers we encountered in implementing a deliberative engagement process for discussing implementation strategies relevant to the evidence-based guideline targeted in this intervention. The goal is to identify factors that may influence the success of deliberative engagement as a technique to involve healthcare staff in identifying priorities for implementation strategies.MethodsWe drew on online chat transcripts from the deliberative engagement forums collected during the DISGO study. The chat transcripts were automatically generated for each discussion and captured the written exchanges between participants and moderators in all participating dental clinics. Chat transcripts were analyzed following a content analysis approach.ResultsOur findings revealed barriers to the successful implementation of deliberative engagement in the context of the DISGO study. Participants were not familiar with the materials that had been prepared for the forum and lacked familiarity with the topic of deliberation. Participants also did not share divergent viewpoints and reinforced existing ideas rather than introducing new ideas.ConclusionsIn order to ensure that obstacles that were encountered in this study are not repeated, it is important to carefully consider how staff can effectively be prepared for the deliberations. Participants must be familiar with the content of the guideline, and most questions about the content and evidence should be answered before the deliberative engagement sessions. If perspectives among staff on a guideline are homogenous, briefing materials should introduce perspectives that complement existing views among staff. It is also necessary to create an environment in which staff are comfortable introducing opinions that may not be held by the majority of colleagues.Trial registrationThis project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730 .

Project description:BackgroundThis study was a retrospective evaluation of an unsuccessfully implemented team-based, chronic disease management program, with an aim to understand more about implementation barriers. The program, the Chronic Disease Management Initiative (CDMI) was a new collaborative model of care for patients with COPD. It utilized customized health information and interactive tools, mainly smartphones, for ongoing disease management. The program's goal was to demonstrate that integrated team-based models of care could improve patient care, as well as reduce readmission rates and emergency department visits. The program planning for CDMI began in 2017, followed by the implementation and evaluation period in 2018. After a 10-month implementation period, the program was unable to enroll a sufficient number of patients to examine if there was an improvement in patient outcomes.MethodsA retrospective case-study design using multiple data sources was used to gather feedback from participants involved in CDMI. Data collection occurred throughout planning and implementation and continued into early 2019. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 10 software. This was followed by content analysis.ResultsAnalysis revealed four key themes as barriers to CDMI's implementation: 1) lack of a needs assessment with key stakeholders; 2) lack of buy-in from medical staff; 3) inadequate patient engagement and; 4) contextual barriers. Planners did not conduct a proper needs assessment, nor include patients in the study design. In addition, there was insufficient consideration for how CDMI should be integrated into the usual COPD care plan, leading to confusion in roles and responsibilities. Poor communication between the implementation team and healthcare providers implementing the program, led to a lack of buy-in and engagement.ConclusionThe key themes resonate with what is already known in the literature. This study supports the importance of using a theoretically grounded plan for implementation. Using a model only in the planning stages is insufficient even when an intervention is based on evidence to support higher quality care. It is imperative to consider practical and contextual factors of program implementation and their interactions. By detailing the 'failed implementation' of this intervention, we hope to share important lessons about the need to plan implementation processes early in program planning.

Project description:BackgroundPerson-centred care (PCC) has been suggested as the preferred model of dementia care in all settings. The EPCentCare study showed that an adapted PCC approach was difficult to implement and had no effect on prescription of antipsychotics in nursing home residents in Germany. This paper reports the qualitative process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers of the implementation of PCC in German nursing homes from the perspective of participating practice development champions.MethodsFive individual and 14 group interviews were conducted with 66 participants (staff and managers) from 18 nursing homes. The analysis was based on inductive coding to identify factors influencing the PCC implementation process. Identified factors were systematised and structured by mapping them to the four constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as a framework that explains implementation processes.ResultsFacilitating implementation factors included among others broadening of the care perspective (coherence), tolerance development within the care team regarding challenging behaviour (cognitive participation), testing new approaches to solutions as a multi-professional team (collective action), and perception of effects of PCC measures (reflexive monitoring). Among the facilitating factors reported in all the NPT constructs, thus affecting the entire implementation process, were the involvement of relatives, multi-professional teamwork and effective collaboration with physicians. Barriers implied uncertainties about the implementation and expectation of a higher workload (coherence), concerns about the feasibility of PCC implementation in terms of human resources (cognitive participation), lack of a person-centred attitude by colleagues or the institution (collective action), and doubts about the effects of PCC (reflexive monitoring). Barriers influencing the entire implementation process comprised insufficient time resources, lack of support, lack of involvement of the multi-professional team, and difficulties regarding communication with the attending physicians.ConclusionsThe findings provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of facilitators and barriers structured along the implementation process. Thus, our findings may assist both researchers and clinicians to develop and reflect more efficiently on PCC implementation processes in nursing homes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02295462 ; November 20, 2014.

Dataset Information

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial.

Publications

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets