Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS incorporate all available evidence into four key recommendations. In order to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, a clinical decision aid was created. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians prior to implementation of the guideline recommendations in a multicentre step wedge cluster randomized control trial.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine emergency room physicians working at five sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators to guideline recommendation uptake and use. Responses were analysed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, and overarching themes describing these barriers and facilitators were identified.

Results

Two themes and six subthemes encompassing 13 theoretical domains were identified. These included clinical decision-making support, awareness of the evidence, social factors, expected consequences, ability of physicians to acquire the necessary data and ease of use. A majority of interviewees anticipated that the guideline recommendations would support clinical decision making and more effectively risk-stratify patients. Other facilitators included endorsement of the guidelines by professional organizations and peers. Barriers to implementation include the fact that laboratory testing and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. The complexity of the clinical decision aid and concerns about test specificity were also identified as potential barriers to use.

Conclusion

Physicians were amenable to using the AAS guideline recommendations to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use. A structured intervention should be developed to address the identified barriers and leverage the facilitators in order to ensure successful implementation. Our findings may have implications for the implementation of other guidelines used in emergency departments.

SUBMITTER: Dmitriew C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8178923 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to improve the quality of care and reduce unjustified individual variation in clinical practice. Knowledge of the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of the CPG recommendations is the first step in creating strategies to improve health outcomes. The present systematic meta-review sought to explore the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of CPGs.MethodsA search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Health System Evidence and International Guideline Library (G-I-N) databases. Systematic reviews of qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies that identified barriers or facilitators for the implementation of CPGs were included. The selection of the title and abstract, the evaluation of the full text, extraction of the data and the quality assessment were carried out by two independent reviewers. To summarise the evidence, we grouped the barriers and facilitators according to the following contexts: political and social, health organisational system, guidelines, health professionals and patients.ResultsOverall, 25 systematic reviews were selected. The relevant barriers in the social-political context were the absence of a leader, difficulties with teamwork and a lack of agreement with colleagues. Relevant barriers in the health system were a lack of time, financial problems and a lack of specialised personnel. Barriers of the CPGs included a lack of clarity and a lack of credibility in the evidence. Regarding the health professional, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and confidence in oneself were relevant. Regarding patients, a negative attitude towards implementation, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and sociocultural beliefs played a role. Some of the most frequent facilitators were consistent leadership, commitment of the members of the team, administrative support of the institution, existence of multidisciplinary teams, application of technology to improve the practice and education regarding the guidelines.ConclusionsThe barriers and facilitators described in this review are factors that influence the implementation of evidence in clinical practice. Knowledge of these factors should contribute to the development of a theoretical basis for the creation of CPG implementation strategies to improve professional practice and health outcomes for patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The number of patient portals is rising, and although portals can have positive effects, their implementation has major impacts on the providing health care institutions. However, little is known about the organizational factors affecting successful implementation. Knowledge of the specific barriers to and facilitators of various stakeholders is likely to be useful for future implementations. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to identify the barriers to and facilitators of patient portal implementation facing various stakeholders within hospital organizations in the Netherlands. METHODS:Purposive sampling was used to select hospitals of various types. A total of 2 university medical centers, 3 teaching hospitals, and 2 general hospitals were included. For each, 3 stakeholders were interviewed: (1) medical professionals, (2) managers, and (3) information technology employees. In total, 21 semistructured interviews were conducted using the Grol and Wensing model, which describes barriers to and facilitators of change in health care practice at 6 levels: (1) innovation; (2) individual professional; (3) patient; (4) social context; (5) organizational context; and (6) economic and political context. Two researchers independently selected and coded quotes by applying this model using a (deductive) directed content approach. Additional factors related to technical and portal characteristics were added using the model of McGinn et al, developed for implementation of electronic health records. RESULTS:In total, we identified 376 quotes, 26 barriers, and 28 facilitators. Thirteen barriers and 12 facilitators were common for all stakeholder groups. The facilitators' perceived usefulness (especially less paperwork) was mentioned by all the stakeholders, followed by subjects' positive attitude. The main barriers were lack of resources (namely, lack of staff and materials), financial difficulties (especially complying with high costs, lack of reimbursements), and guaranteeing privacy and security (eg, strict regulations). Both similarities and differences were found between stakeholder groups and hospital types. For example, managers and information technology employees mainly considered guaranteeing privacy and security as a predominant barrier. Financial difficulties were particularly mentioned by medical professionals and managers. CONCLUSIONS:Patient portal implementation is a complex process and is not only a technical process but also affects the organization and its staff. Barriers and facilitators occurred at various levels and differed among hospital types (eg, lack of accessibility) and stakeholder groups (eg, sufficient resources) in terms of several factors. Our findings underscore the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in portal implementations. We identified a set of barriers and facilitators that are likely to be useful in making strategic and efficient implementation plans.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated promise in enhancing breast cancer diagnosis, the implementation of AI algorithms in clinical practice encounters various barriers. This scoping review aims to identify these barriers and facilitators to highlight key considerations for developing and implementing AI solutions in breast cancer imaging.MethodA literature search was conducted from 2012 to 2022 in six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase, IEEE, and ArXiv). The articles were included if some barriers and/or facilitators in the conception or implementation of AI in breast clinical imaging were described. We excluded research only focusing on performance, or with data not acquired in a clinical radiology setup and not involving real patients.ResultsA total of 107 articles were included. We identified six major barriers related to data (B1), black box and trust (B2), algorithms and conception (B3), evaluation and validation (B4), legal, ethical, and economic issues (B5), and education (B6), and five major facilitators covering data (F1), clinical impact (F2), algorithms and conception (F3), evaluation and validation (F4), and education (F5).ConclusionThis scoping review highlighted the need to carefully design, deploy, and evaluate AI solutions in clinical practice, involving all stakeholders to yield improvement in healthcare.Clinical relevance statementThe identification of barriers and facilitators with suggested solutions can guide and inform future research, and stakeholders to improve the design and implementation of AI for breast cancer detection in clinical practice.Key points• Six major identified barriers were related to data; black-box and trust; algorithms and conception; evaluation and validation; legal, ethical, and economic issues; and education. • Five major identified facilitators were related to data, clinical impact, algorithms and conception, evaluation and validation, and education. • Coordinated implication of all stakeholders is required to improve breast cancer diagnosis with AI.

Project description:BackgroundRare diseases present a challenge to guideline implementation due to a low prevalence in the general population and the unfamiliarity of healthcare professionals. Existing literature in more common diseases references barriers and facilitators to guideline implementation. This systematic review aims to identify these barriers and facilitators in rare diseases from existing literature.MethodsA multi-stage strategy included searching MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane library from the earliest date available to April 2021, Orphanet journal hand-search, a pearl-growing strategy from a primary source and reference/citation search was performed. The Integrated Checklist of Determinants of Practice which comprises of twelve checklists and taxonomies, informed by 57 potential determinants was selected as a screening tool to identify determinants that warrant further in-depth investigation to inform design of future implementation strategies.ResultsForty-four studies were included, most of which were conducted in the United States (54.5%). There were 168 barriers across 36 determinants (37 studies) and 52 facilitators across 22 determinants (22 studies). Fifteen diseases were included across eight WHO ICD-11 disease categories. Together individual health professional factors and guideline factors formed the majority of the reported determinants (59.5% of barriers and 53.8% of facilitators). Overall, the three most reported individual barriers were the awareness/familiarity with the recommendation, domain knowledge and feasibility. The three most reported individual facilitators were awareness/familiarity with the recommendation, agreement with the recommendation and ability to readily access the guidelines. Resource barriers to implementation included technology costs, ancillary staff costs and more cost-effective alternatives. There was a paucity of studies reporting influential people, patient advocacy groups or opinion leaders, or organisational factors influencing implementation.ConclusionsKey barriers and facilitators to the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in the setting of rare diseases were at the individual health professional and guideline level. Influential people and organisational factors were relatively under-reported and warrant exploration, as does increasing the ability to access the guidelines as a potential intervention.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to international implementation of a prospective system for standardized outcomes measurement in cleft care.DesignCleft teams that have implemented the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for cleft care were invited to participate in this 2-part qualitative study: (1) an exploratory survey among clinicians, health information technology professionals, and project coordinators, and (2) semistructured interviews of project leads. Thematic content analysis was performed, with organization of themes according to the dimensions of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance.ResultsFour cleft teams in Europe and North America participated in this study. Thirteen participants completed exploratory questionnaires and 5 interviewees participated in follow-up interviews. Survey responses and thematic content analysis revealed common facilitators and barriers to implementation at all sites. Teams reach patients either via email or during the clinic visit to capture patient-reported outcomes. Adopting routine data collection is enhanced by aligning priorities at the organizational and cleft team level. Streamlining workflows and developing an efficient data collection platform are necessary early on, followed by pilot testing or stepwise implementation. Regular meetings and financial resources are crucial for implementing, sustaining, analyzing collected data, and providing feedback to health care professionals and patients. Fostering patient-centered care was articulated as a positive outcome, whereas time presented challenges across all RE-AIM dimensions.ConclusionsIdentified themes can inform ongoing implementation efforts. Intentionally investing time to lay a sound foundation early on will benefit every phase of implementation and help overcome barriers such as lack of support or motivation.