Dataset Information

How to foster successful implementation of a patient reported experience measurement in the disability sector: an example of developing strategies in co-creation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The integrated uptake of patient-reported experience measures, using outcomes for the micro, meso and macro level, calls for a successful implementation process which depends on how stakeholders are involved in this process. Currently, the impact of stakeholders on strategies to improve the integrated use is rarely reported, and information about how stakeholders can be engaged, including care-users who are communication vulnerable, is limited. This study illustrates the impact of all stakeholders on developing tailored implementation strategies and provides insights into supportive conditions to involve care-users who are communication vulnerable.

Methods

With the use of participatory action research, implementation strategies were co-created by care-users who are communication vulnerable (n = 8), professionals (n = 12), management (n = 6) and researchers (n = 5) over 9 months. Data collection consisted of audiotapes, reports, and researchers' notes. Conventional content analysis was performed.

Results

The impact of care-users concerned the strategies' look and feel, understandability and relevance. Professionals influenced impact on how to use strategies and terminology. The impact of management was on showing the gap between policy and practice, and learning from previous improvement failures. Researchers showed impact on analysis, direction of strategy changes and translating academic and development experience into practice. The engagement of care-users who are communication vulnerable was supported, taking into account organisational issues and the presentation of information.

Conclusions

The impact of all engaged stakeholders was identified over the different levels strategies focused on. Care-users who are communication vulnerable were valuable engaged in co-creation implementation strategies by equipping them to their needs and routines, which requires adaptation in communication, delimited meetings and a safe group environment.

Trial registration

Reviewed by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zuyderland-Zuyd (METCZ20190006). NL7594 registred at https://www.trialregister.nl/ .

SUBMITTER: van Rooijen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8229276 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence on how to implement new interventions into complex healthcare environments is often poorly reported and indexed, reducing its potential to inform initiatives to improve healthcare services. Using the implementation of a digital intervention within routine National Health Service (NHS) practice, we provide an example of how to develop a theoretically based implementation plan and how to report it transparently. In doing so we also highlight some of the challenges to implementation in routine healthcare.MethodsThe implemented intervention was HeLP-Diabetes, a digital self-management programme for people with Type 2 Diabetes, which was effective in improving diabetes control. The target setting for the implementation was an inner city London Clinical Commissioning Group in the NHS comprised of 34 general practices. HeLP-Diabetes was designed to be offered to patients as part of routine diabetes care across England. Evidence synthesis, engagement of local stakeholders, a theory of implementation (Normalization Process Theory), feedback, qualitative interviews and usage data were used to develop an implementation plan.ResultsA new implementation plan was developed to implement HeLP-Diabetes within routine practice. Individual component strategies were selected and developed informed by Normalization Process Theory. These strategies included: engagement of local opinion leaders, provision of educational materials, educational visits, educational meetings, audit and feedback and reminders. Additional strategies were introduced iteratively to address barriers that arose during the implementation. Barriers largely related to difficulties in allocating resources to implement the intervention within routine care.ConclusionThis paper provides a worked example of implementing a digital health intervention. The learning from this work can inform others undertaking the work of planning and executing implementation activities in routine healthcare. Of particular importance is: the selection of appropriate theory to guide the implementation process and selection of strategies; ensuring that enough attention is paid to planning implementation; and a flexible approach that allows response to emerging barriers.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of eHealth is more challenging for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) than for the general population because the technologies often do not fit the complex needs and living circumstances of people with IDs. A translational gap exists between the developed technology and users' needs and capabilities. User involvement approaches have been developed to overcome this mismatch during the design, development, and implementation processes of the technology. The effectiveness and use of eHealth have received much scholarly attention, but little is known about user involvement approaches.ObjectiveIn this scoping review, we aimed to identify the inclusive approaches currently used for the design, development, and implementation of eHealth for people with IDs. We reviewed how and in what phases people with IDs and other stakeholders were included in these processes. We used 9 domains identified from the Centre for eHealth Research and Disease management road map and the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework to gain insight into these processes.MethodsWe identified both scientific and gray literature through systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and (websites of) relevant intermediate (health care) organizations. We included studies published since 1995 that showed the design, development, or implementation processes of eHealth for people with IDs. Data were analyzed along 9 domains: participatory development, iterative process, value specification, value proposition, technological development and design, organization, external context, implementation, and evaluation.ResultsThe search strategy resulted in 10,639 studies, of which 17 (0.16%) met the inclusion criteria. Various approaches were used to guide user involvement (eg, human or user-centered design and participatory development), most of which applied an iterative process mainly during technological development. The involvement of stakeholders other than end users was described in less detail. The literature focused on the application of eHealth at an individual level and did not consider the organizational context. Inclusive approaches in the design and development phases were well described; however, the implementation phase remained underexposed.ConclusionsThe participatory development, iterative process, and technological development and design domains showed inclusive approaches applied at the start of and during the development, whereas only a few approaches involved end users and iterative processes at the end of the process and during implementation. The literature focused primarily on the individual use of the technology, and the external, organizational, and financial contextual preconditions received less attention. However, members of this target group rely on their (social) environment for care and support. More attention is needed for these underrepresented domains, and key stakeholders should be included further on in the process to reduce the translational gap that exists between the developed technologies and user needs, capabilities, and context.

Project description:Background contextThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) instruments are an important advancement in the use of PROs, but need to be evaluated with longitudinal data to determine whether they are responsive to change in specific clinical populations.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).Study design/settingThis study entailed prospective data collection from consecutive patients aged 18 and older, visiting a university-based orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017.Patient sampleA total of 763 participants in the sample had a mean age of 58 (SD = 15) years and the sample was 50.2% male and 92.8% Caucasian.Outcome measuresThe PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI Computerized Adaptive Tests along with either the NDI or ODI instruments were administered on tablet computers before clinic visits. Global rating of change questions relating to pain and function levels was also administered.MethodsBaseline scores were compared with follow-up scores at four different time-points from 3-months to 6-months and beyond. Patient demographics, mean scores, paired-sample t tests, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Effect Size (ES) were analyzed to determine instrument responsiveness. This project was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number U01AR067138 and the authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.ResultsThe PROMIS instruments were strongly correlated with each other as well as with the NDI and ODI. Responsiveness was significant on all four instruments at every time-point assessed (paired sample t tests ranged from p < .001 to p = .049). SRM's were large and over 0.94 for every instrument at every time-point. Cohen's d ES were large and over 0.96 for all at all time-points, except for the NDI which had ES ranging from 0.74 to 0.83. This study showed large effect sizes and responsiveness of the PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, NDI and ODI in a population of orthopaedic patients with spine pathologies.ConclusionThis study demonstrates strong responsiveness of the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI in a spine clinic population.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed at describing the use of a prospective database on hospital deliveries for analysing caesarean section (CS) practices according to the WHO manual for Robson classification, and for developing recommendations for improving the quality of care (QoC).DesignObservational study.SettingUniversity Obstetric Unit at De Soysa Hospital for Women, the largest maternity unit in Sri Lanka.Data collection and analysisFor each childbirth, 150 variables were routinely collected in a standardised form and entered into a database. Data were routinely monitored for ensuring quality. Information on deliveries occurring from July 2015 to June 2017 were analysed according the WHO Robson classification manual. Findings were discussed internally to develop quality improvement recommendations.Results7504 women delivered in the hospital during the study period and at least one maternal or fetal pathological condition was reported in 2845 (37.9%). The CS rate was 30.0%, with 11.9% CS being performed prelabour. According to the Robson classification, Group 3 and Group 1 were the most represented groups (27.0% and 23.1% of population, respectively). The major contributors to the CS rate were group 5 (29.6%), group 1 (14.0%), group 2a (13.3%) and group 10 (11.5%). The most commonly reported indications for CS included abnormal cardiotocography/suspected fetal distress, past CS and failed progress of labour or failed induction. These suggested the need for further discussion on CS practices. Overall, 18 recommendations were agreed on. Besides updating protocols and hands-on training, activities agreed on included monitoring and supervision, criterion-based audits, risk management meetings and appropriate information for patients, and recommendations to further improve the quality of data.ConclusionsThis study provides an example on how the WHO manual for Robson classification can be used in an action-oriented manner for developing recommendations for improving the QoC, and the quality of data collected.