Dataset Information

Collaborative model of intrapartum care: qualitative study on barriers and facilitators to implementation in a private Brazilian hospital.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A collaborative (midwife-obstetrician) model of intrapartum care (CMIC) is associated with lower caesarean section (CS) rates than physician-led models. In 2019, the largest private maternity hospital in Latin America (14.000 deliveries/year, 89% CS) created a quality improvement initiative to optimise intrapartum care and safely reduce CS in low-risk women managed by its internal team of healthcare providers (HCP). We conducted formative research to identify potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a CMIC.

Methods

Three groups of stakeholders participated in focus groups and interviews: hospital managers and clinical coordinators, HCP working in labour/delivery wards and pregnant women intending to give birth in the hospital. We explored participants' views about the acceptability of implementing a CMIC where a nurse-midwife (NM) on shift would be the main intrapartum HCP, with continuous support/supervision of a dedicated, in-house, obstetrician-gynaecologist (OB-GYN). A thematic analysis approach was used.

Results

12 HCPs, 5 clinical coordinators, 2 hospital managers and 7 women participated. OB-GYNs, coordinators and managers highlighted health system, organisational and structural factors (NMs' limited experience/skills, professional roles, financial reimbursement) as potential barriers. NMs identified logistical and human resources as additional barriers. Women viewed the CMIC with perplexity and insecurity because of cultural beliefs about the dominant role of OB-GYNs, and limited information about NM's capabilities. All professionals agreed that women's acceptance of a CMIC will require educational interventions and communication strategies to inform potential users about the advantages and safety of this model.

Conclusion

There are important barriers and facilitators to implement a CMIC in a private Brazilian maternity hospital. Factors related to health system structure and organisation may have the greatest impact. A CMIC is more likely to succeed if stakeholders' concerns about responsibilities, power and financial revenues are addressed, and educational interventions targeted at users are deployed prior to its implementation.

SUBMITTER: Colomar M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8679125 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care plays a central role in the treatment of depression. Nonetheless, shortcomings in its management and suboptimal outcomes have been identified. Collaborative care models improve processes for the management of depressive disorders and associated outcomes. We developed a strategy to implement the INDI collaborative care program for the management of depression in primary health care centers across Catalonia. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate a trial implementation of the program to identify barriers, facilitators, and proposals for improvement.MethodsOne year after the implementation of the INDI program in 18 public primary health care centers we performed a qualitative study in which the opinions and experiences of 23 primary care doctors and nurses from the participating centers were explored in focus groups. We performed thematic content analysis of the focus group transcripts.ResultsThe results were organized into three categories: facilitators, barriers, and proposals for improvement as perceived by the health care professionals involved. The most important facilitator identified was the perception that the INDI collaborative care program could be a useful tool for reorganizing processes and improving the management of depression in primary care, currently viewed as deficient. The main barriers identified were of an organizational nature: heavy workloads, lack of time, high staff turnover and shortages, and competing demands. Additional obstacles were inertia and resistance to change among health care professionals. Proposals for improvement included institutional buy-in to guarantee enduring support and the organizational changes needed for successful implementation.ConclusionsThe INDI program is perceived as a useful, viable program for improving the management of depression in primary care. Uptake by primary care centers and health care professionals, however, was poor. The identification and analysis of barriers and facilitators will help refine the strategy to achieve successful, widespread implementation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03285659 ; Registered 18th September, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundKangaroo Mother Care (KMC) is a high impact, low technology and cost-effective intervention for the care of preterm and low birth weight newborn. Cote d'Ivoire adopted the intervention and opened the first KMC unit in 2019. This study aimed to assess barriers and facilitators of KMC implementation in Cote d'Ivoire, a year after its introduction, as well as proposed solutions for improving KMC implementation in the country.MethodThis was a qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews, carried out in September 2020 in the first KMC unit opened at the Teaching Hospital of Treichville. The study involved healthcare providers providing KMC and mothers of newborn who were receiving or received KMC at the unit. A thematic analysis was performed using both inductive and deductive (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-driven) approaches. NVivo 12 was used to assist with coding.ResultsA total of 44 semi-structured interviews were conducted, 12 with healthcare providers and 32 with mothers. The barriers identified were lack of supplies, insufficiency of human resources, lack of space for admission, lack of home visits, lack of food for mothers, lack of collaboration between health services involved in newborn care, increased workload, the beliefs of carrying the baby on the chest, father's resistance, low rate of exclusive breastfeeding, lack of community awareness. Facilitators identified were training of healthcare providers, strong leadership, the low cost of KMC, healthcare providers' perceived value of KMC, mothers-healthcare providers' relationship, mothers' adherence to KMC and the capacity of the KMC unit to network with external organizations. The proposed solutions for improving KMC implementation were volunteer staff motivation, intensifying education and counselling of mothers and families, the recruitment of a psychologist and the involvement of all stakeholders.ConclusionOur study highlighted the challenges to implement KMC in Cote d'Ivoire with unique and specific barriers to implementation. We recommend to researchers and decision makers to respectively design strategies and adopt intervention that specifically address these barriers and facilitators to a better uptake of KMC. Decision makers should also take into account the proposed solutions for a better implementation and scaling up of KMC.

Project description:ObjectiveA prerequisite for patient-centredness in healthcare organisations is offering patients access to adequate health information, which fits their needs. A personalised digital care pathway (PDCP) is a tool that facilitates the provision of tailored and timely information. Despite its potential, barriers influence the implementation of digital tools in healthcare organisations. Therefore, we investigated the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of the PDCP among stakeholders.DesignA qualitative study was conducted to acquire insight into perceptions of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of a digital care pathway in three diverse patient groups.SettingThis study is part of the PDCP research project in a large academic hospital in the Netherlands.ParticipantsPurposive sampling was used to recruit internal stakeholders (eg, healthcare professionals, employees of the supporting departments) and external stakeholders (eg, employees of the external PDCP supplier). In addition, existing semistructured interviews with patients involved in pilot implementation (n=24) were used to verify the findings.ResultsWe conducted 25 semistructured interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Content analyses yielded four themes: (1) stakeholders' perceptions of the PDCP (eg, perceived usefulness); (2) characteristics of the individuals involved and the implementation process (eg, individuals express resistance to change); (3) organisational readiness (eg, lack of resources); and (4) collaboration within the organisation (eg, mutual communication, multidisciplinary codesign). The main barriers mentioned by patients were duration of first activation and necessity for up-to-date content. In addition, the most facilitating factor for patients was user-friendliness.ConclusionOur findings emphasise the importance of gaining insights into the various perspectives of stakeholder groups, including patients, regarding the implementation of the PDCP. The perceived barriers and facilitators can be used to improve the PDCP implementation plan and tailor the development and improvement of other digital patient communication tools.

Project description:Introduction/purposeDue to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many in-person cancer exercise and rehabilitation programs necessarily transitioned to virtual formats to meet the needs of individuals living with and beyond cancer. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively assess program-level facilitators and barriers to virtual exercise program implementation and to identify preferred strategies to overcome implementation barriers.MethodsUS-based virtual cancer exercise and rehabilitation programs were recruited from professional networks via an emailed screening questionnaire. Eligible programs identified a point of contact for a 1:1 semi-structured interview to discuss program-level barriers and facilitators to implementing virtual exercise programs. Interview transcript analysis was conducted via inductive coding techniques using NVivo software. Barriers were categorized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a prioritized list of strategies to support implementation was created by mapping barriers to a list of Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change.ResultsOf the 41 unique responses received, 24 program representatives completed semi-structured interviews. Interviewees represented individual programs, community-based programs, and hospital-based cancer exercise/rehabilitation programs. Analysis showed high correlation between facilitators and barriers by program type, with both program- and individual-level strategies used to implement exercise programs virtually. Strategies that ranked highest to support implementation include promoting program adaptability, building a coalition of stakeholders and identifying program champions, developing an implementation blueprint, altering organizational incentives and allowances, providing education across stakeholder groups, and accessing funding.ConclusionsLearning from the transition of cancer exercise and rehabilitation programs to virtual formats due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we identify program-level barriers and facilitators encountered in the implementation of virtual programs and highlight implementation strategies that are most relevant to overcome common barriers. We present a roadmap for programs to use these strategies for future work in virtual exercise and rehabilitation program implementation.

Project description:BackgroundStepped and Collaborative Care Models (SCCMs) have shown potential for improving mental health care. Most SCCMs have been used in primary care settings. At the core of such models are initial psychosocial distress assessments commonly in form of patient screening. We aimed to assess the feasibility of such assessments in a general hospital setting in Switzerland.MethodsWe conducted and analyzed eighteen semi-structured interviews with nurses and physicians involved in a recent introduction of a SCCM model in a hospital setting, as part of the SomPsyNet project in Basel-Stadt. Following an implementation research approach, we used the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework for analysis. The TICD distinguishes seven domains: guideline factors, individual healthcare professional factors, patient factors, professional interactions, incentives and resources, capacity for organizational change, and social, political, and legal factors. Domains were split into themes and subthemes, which were used for line-by-line coding.ResultsNurses and physicians reported factors belonging to all seven TICD domains. An appropriate integration of the psychosocial distress assessment into preexisting hospital processes and information technology systems was the most important facilitator. Subjectivity of the assessment, lack of awareness about the assessment, and time constraints, particularly among physicians, were factors undermining and limiting the implementation of the psychosocial distress assessment.ConclusionsAwareness raising through regular training of new employees, feedback on performance and patient benefits, and working with champions and opinion leaders can likely support a successful implementation of routine psychosocial distress assessments. Additionally, aligning psychosocial distress assessments with workflows is essential to assure the sustainability of the procedure in a working context with commonly limited time.

Project description:BackgroundCare bundles are small sets of evidence-based recommendations, designed to support the implementation of evidence-based best clinical practice. However, there is variation in the design and implementation of care bundles, which may impact on the fidelity of delivery and subsequently their clinical effectiveness.MethodsA scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley framework to identify the literature reporting on the design, implementation and evaluation of care bundles. The Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched for manuscripts published between 2001 and November 2017; hand-searching of references and citations was also undertaken. Data were initially assessed using a quality assessment tool, the Downs and Black checklist, prior to further analysis and narrative synthesis. Implementation strategies were classified using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) criteria.ResultsTwenty-eight thousand six hundred ninety-two publications were screened and 348 articles retrieved in full text. Ninety-nine peer-reviewed quantitative publications were included for data extraction. These consisted of one randomised crossover trial, one randomised cluster trial, one case-control study, 20 prospective cohort studies and 76 non-parallel cohort studies. Twenty-three percent of studies were classified as poor based on Downs and Black checklist, and reporting of implementation strategies lacked structure. Negative associations were found between the number of elements in a bundle and compliance (Spearman's rho = - 0.47, non-parallel cohort and - 0.65, prospective cohort studies), and between the complexity of elements and compliance (p < 0.001, chi-squared = 23.05). Implementation strategies associated with improved compliance included evaluative and iterative approaches, development of stakeholder relationships and education and training strategies.ConclusionCare bundles with a small number of simple elements have better compliance rates. Standardised reporting of implementation strategies may help to implement care bundles into clinical practice with high fidelity.Trial registrationThis review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD 42015029963 in December 2015.

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:ObjectivesTo explore barriers and facilitators to patient communication in an acute and rehabilitation ward setting from the perspectives of hospital staff, volunteers and patients following stroke.DesignA qualitative descriptive study as part of a larger study which aimed to develop and test a Communication Enhanced Environment model in an acute and a rehabilitation ward.SettingA metropolitan Australian private hospital.ParticipantsFocus groups with acute and rehabilitation doctors, nurses, allied health staff and volunteers (n=51), and interviews with patients following stroke (n=7), including three with aphasia, were conducted.ResultsThe key themes related to barriers and facilitators to communication, contained subcategories related to hospital, staff and patient factors. Hospital-related barriers to communication were private rooms, mixed wards, the physical hospital environment, hospital policies, the power imbalance between staff and patients, and task-specific communication. Staff-related barriers to communication were staff perception of time pressures, underutilisation of available resources, staff individual factors such as personality, role perception and lack of knowledge and skills regarding communication strategies. The patient-related barrier to communication involved patients' functional and medical status. Hospital-related facilitators to communication were shared rooms/co-location of patients, visitors and volunteers. Staff-related facilitators to communication were utilisation of resources, speech pathology support, staff knowledge and utilisation of communication strategies, and individual staff factors such as personality. No patient-related facilitators to communication were reported by staff, volunteers or patients.ConclusionsBarriers and facilitators to communication appeared to interconnect with potential to influence one another. This suggests communication access may vary between patients within the same setting. Practical changes may promote communication opportunities for patients in hospital early after stroke such as access to areas for patient co-location as well as areas for privacy, encouraging visitors, enhancing patient autonomy, and providing communication-trained health staff and volunteers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although polypharmacy can cause adverse health outcomes, patients often know little about their medication. A regularly conducted medication review (MR) can help provide an overview of a patient's medication, and benefit patients by enhancing their knowledge of their drugs. As little is known about patient attitudes towards MRs in primary care, the objective of this study was to gain insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an MR. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study with a convenience sample of 31 patients (age???60 years, ?3 chronic diseases, taking ?5 drugs/d); in Hesse, Germany, in February 2016. We conducted two focus groups and, in order to ensure the participation of elderly patients with reduced mobility, 16 telephone interviews. Both relied on a semi-structured interview guide dealing with the following subjects: patients' experience of polypharmacy, general design of MRs, potential barriers and facilitators to implementation etc. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Patients' average age was 74 years (range 62-88 years). We identified barriers and facilitators for four main topics regarding the implementation of MRs in primary care: patient participation, GP-led MRs, pharmacist-led MRs, and the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs. Barriers to patient participation concerned patient autonomy, while facilitators involved patient awareness of medication-related problems. Barriers to GP-led MRs concerned GP's lack of resources while facilitators related to the trusting relationship between patient and GP. Pharmacist-led MRs might be hindered by a lack of patients' confidence in pharmacists' expertise, but facilitated by pharmacies' digital records of the patients' medications. Regarding the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs, a potential barrier was patients' uncertainty regarding the extent of their training. Patients could, however, imagine GPs delegating some aspects of MRs to them. CONCLUSIONS:Our study suggests that patients regard MRs as beneficial and expect indications for their medicines to be checked, and possible interactions to be identified. To foster the implementation of MRs in primary care, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators to the four identified topics.