Dataset Information

Barriers and Facilitators to the International Implementation of Standardized Outcome Measures in Clinical Cleft Practice.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators to international implementation of a prospective system for standardized outcomes measurement in cleft care.

Design

Cleft 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.

Results

Four 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.

Conclusions

Identified 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.

SUBMITTER: Apon I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8670748 | 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:BackgroundAcute 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTwo 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.ConclusionPhysicians 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.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts' perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs.MethodsWe conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data.ResultsIn two interviews two participants were interviewed at the same time. This resulted in a total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and eight different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development.ConclusionThe steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future may be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.

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:Aim and objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate current advanced practice Masters students' experience of clinical supervision, to explore how clinical supervision works in practice and to identify students' perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to clinical supervision in their workplace.BackgroundAdvanced practitioners, and in particular nurses, play a pivotal role in delivering health care across acute and primary care settings. These non-medical professionals fulfil a rapidly expanding proportion of roles traditionally undertaken by medically qualified staff within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and often lead specialist clinics and services. To prepare for the advanced practice role, individuals are required to undertake a Master's in advanced practice to develop the required skills and knowledge and work in clinical practice with a clinical assessor/supervisor to demonstrate competence and performance.DesignA mixed method study using an online descriptive cross-sectional survey and qualitative data were collected via focus groups and has been reported using the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study checklist.ResultsA total of 79 students completed the online survey (from 145 AP students), a response rate of 55%. Most respondents were nurses (n = 73) with 49 (62%) in a formal advanced practice trainee role, and the majority believed their clinical supervisor had a good understanding of advanced practice and the advanced practice role. Two focus groups were held with 16 participants in total. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (a) perceived level and amount of support from clinical supervisors, (b) skill level of clinical supervisors, (c) physicians and their perceptions on supervising, Advanced practitioners (d) clinical supervisors' preparation for the role and (e) transition from trainee to qualified advanced practitioner.ConclusionThe survey revealed that advanced practitioner students perceived that clinical supervisors and workplace colleagues had a good understanding of the advanced practice role with good levels of support in practice. A more coherent approach is required for clinical supervision and an implementation framework that can be formally evaluated.Relevance to clinical practiceSeveral significant barriers to clinical supervision for advanced practitioner students were identified, and there are currently more barriers (including COVID-19) than facilitators.

Project description:BackgroundThe issue of lower extremity amputation has been in the Colombian political agenda for its relationship with the armed conflict and antipersonnel mines. In 2015 the Colombian Ministry of Health published a national clinical practice guideline (CPG) for amputee patients. However, there is a need to design implementation strategies that target end-users and the context in which the CPG will be used. This study aims to identify users' perceptions about the barriers and facilitators for implementing the guideline for the care of amputee patients in a middle-income country such as Colombia.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 users, including patients, health workers, and administrative staff of institutions of the health system in Colombia. Individuals were purposively selected to ensure different perspectives, allowing a balance of individual positions.ResultsAccording to participants' perceptions, barriers to implementation are classified as individual barriers (characteristics of the amputee patient and professionals), health system barriers (resource availability, timely care, information systems, service costs, and regulatory changes), and barriers related to clinical practice guidelines (utility, methodological rigour, implementation flexibility, and characteristics of the group developing the guidelines).ConclusionsOur study advances knowledge on the perceived individual and health system barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the CPG for amputee patients in Colombia. Importantly, the governance, financial, and service delivery arrangements of the Colombian health system are determining factors in implementing CPGs. For example, the financial arrangements between the insurance companies and the health care provider institutions were identified as barriers for the implementation of recommendations related to the continuity and opportunity of care of patients with amputations. The design of implementation strategies that successfully address the individual behaviours and the contextual health systems arrangements may significantly impact the health care process for amputee patients in Colombia.

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of stroke-related impairment on activities of daily living may vary between patients, and can only be estimated by applying patient-reported outcome measures. The International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement has developed a standard set of instruments that combine clinical and longitudinal patient-reported outcome measures for stroke. The present study was designed (1) to implement and evaluate the feasibility of the use of it as a consistent outcome measure in clinical routine at the stroke center of a German university hospital, (2) to characterize impairment in everyday life caused by stroke, and (3) to identify predictive factors associated with patient-relevant outcomes.MethodsWe plan to enroll 1040 consecutive patients with the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or intracerebral hemorrhage in a prospective observational study. Demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and living situation are assessed at inpatient surveillance. At 90?days and 12?months after inclusion, follow-up assessments take place including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short Form (PROMIS-10), the Patient- Health Questionnaire-4, and the simplified modified Ranking Scale questionnaire. The acceptance and feasibility (1) will be assessed by a process evaluation through qualitative semi-structured interviews with clinical staff and patients and quantitative analyses of the data quality evaluating practicability, acceptance, adoption, and fidelity to protocol. The primary outcome of objective 2 and 3 is health-related quality of life measured with the PROMIS-10. Additional outcomes are depressive and anxiety symptoms and patient participation in their social roles. Patient-reported outcomes will be assessed in their longitudinal course using (generalized) mixed regressions. Exploratory descriptive and inference statistical analyses will be used to find patterns of patient characteristics and predictive factors of the outcome domains.PerspectiveThe results will describe and further establish the evaluation of stroke patients of a stroke center by standardized PROMs in everyday life.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03795948). Approval of the local ethics committee (Ethik-Kommission der Ärztekammer Hamburg) has been obtained.