Dataset Information

Stakeholder views of the development of a clinical quality registry for interventional radiology: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical quality registries (CQRs) can likely improve quality in healthcare and research. However, studies indicate that effective use of CQRs is hindered by lack of engagement and interest among stakeholders, as well as factors related to organisational context, registry design and data quality. To fulfil the potential of CQRs, more knowledge on stakeholders' perceptions of the factors that will facilitate or hamper the development of CQRs is essential to the more appropriate targeting of registry implementation and the subsequent use of the data. The primary aim of this study was to examine factors that can potentially affect the development of a national CQR for interventional radiology in Norway from the perspective of stakeholders. Furthermore, we wanted to identify the intervention functions likely to enable CQR development. Only one such registry, located in Sweden, has been established. To provide a broader context for the Norwegian study, we also sought to investigate experiences with the development of this registry.

Methods

A qualitative study of ten Norwegian radiologists and radiographers using focus groups was conducted, and an in-depth interview with the initiator of the Swedish registry was carried out. Questions were based on the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation for Behaviour Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. The participants' responses were categorised into predefined themes using a deductive process of thematic analysis.

Results

Knowledge of the rationale used in establishing a CQR, beliefs about the beneficial consequences of a registry for quality improvement and research and an opportunity to learn from a well-developed registry were perceived by the participants as factors facilitating CQR development. The study further identified a range of development barriers related to environmental and resource factors (e.g., a lack of organisational support, time) and individuallevel factors (e.g., role boundaries, resistance to change), as well as several intervention functions likely to be appropriate in targeting these barriers.

Conclusion

This study provides a deeper understanding of factors that may be involved in the behaviour of stakeholders regarding the development of a CQR. The findings may assist in designing, implementing and evaluating a methodologically rigorous CQR intervention.

SUBMITTER: Haig Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742914 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Innovations resulting from research have both national and global impact, so selecting the most promising research studies to fund is crucial. Peer review of research funding applications is part of the selection process, and requires considerable resources. This study aimed to elicit stakeholder opinions about which factors contribute to and influence effective peer review of funding applications to the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and to identify possible minor improvements to current processes and any major changes or potential innovations to achieve a more efficient peer review process. DESIGN:Qualitative interviews with 30 stakeholders involved in the peer review process. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were drawn from three NIHR coordinating centres and represented four types of stakeholders: board members with responsibility for making funding decisions, applicants, external peer reviewers and NIHR staff. METHODS:All interviews were conducted by telephone apart from three that were face to face with NIHR staff. Data were analysed using a thematic template method. RESULTS:The responses from NIHR staff, board members and reviewers differed from those received from applicants. The first three groups focused on how well the process of peer review did or did not function. The applicants mentioned these points but in addition often reflected on how their personal application was assessed. Process improvements suggested included: developing a more proportionate review process; providing greater guidance, feedback, training, acknowledgement or incentives for peer reviewers; reducing the time commitment and amount of paperwork; and asking reviewers to comment on the importance, strengths and weaknesses of applications and flaws which are potentially 'fixable'. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, participants were supportive of the need for peer review in evaluating applications for research funding. This study revealed which parts of the process are working well and are valued, and barriers, difficulties and potential areas for improvement and development.

Project description:Background: Anticholinergic burden (ACB), is defined as the cumulative effect of anticholinergic medication which are widely prescribed to older adults despite increasing ACB being associated with adverse effects such as: falls, dementia and increased mortality. This research explores the views of health care professionals (HCPs) and patients on a planned trial to reduce ACB by stopping or switching anticholinergic medications. The objectives were to explore the views of key stakeholders (patients, the public, and HCPs) regarding the potential acceptability, design and conduct of an ACB reduction trial. Materials and Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with 25 HCPs involved in prescribing medication with anticholinergic properties and with 22 members of the public and patients who were prescribed with the medication. Topic guides for the interviews and focus groups explored aspects of feasibility including: 1) views of a trial of de-prescribing/medication switching; 2) how to best communicate information about such a trial; 3) views on who would be best placed and preferred to undertake such medication changes, e.g., pharmacists or General Practitioners (GPs)? 4) perceived barriers and facilitators to trial participation and the smooth conduct of such a trial; 5) HCP views on the future implementability of this approach to reducing ACB and 6) patients' willingness to be contacted for participation in a future trial. Qualitative data analysis was underpinned by Normalization Process Theory. Results: The public, patients and HCPs were supportive of an ACB reduction trial. There was consensus among the different groups that key points to consider with such a trial included: 1) ensuring patient engagement throughout to enable concerns/potential pitfalls to be addressed from the beginning; 2) ensuring clear communication to minimise potential misconceptions about the reasons for ACB reduction; and 3) provision of access to a point of contact for patients throughout the life of a trial to address concerns; The HCPs in particular suggested two more key points: 4) minimise the workload implications of any trial; and 5) pharmacists may be best placed to carry out ACB reviews, though overall responsibility for patient medication should remain with GPs. Conclusion: Patients, the public and HCPs are supportive of trials to reduce ACB. Good communication and patient engagement during design and delivery of a trial are essential as well as safety netting and minimising workload.