Dataset Information

Evaluation of Normalization After Implementation of the Digital Dutch Obstetric Telephone Triage System: Mixed Methods Study With a Questionnaire Survey and Focus Group Discussion.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Dutch Obstetric Telephone Triage System (DOTTS) was developed to improve the quality of acute obstetric care. To achieve optimal effect, the DOTTS should be adopted in the daily care process by triage staff.

Objective

The primary aim was to evaluate the degree of implementation (ie, normalization) of the DOTTS, and the secondary aim was to evaluate which lessons can be learned from its current implementation in Dutch hospitals.

Methods

An evaluation study with a mixed methods design was performed. All triage staff in 9 Dutch hospitals that implemented the DOTTS before September 1, 2019, were invited to complete the Normalization Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire between December 2019 and July 2020. The questionnaire is based on the Normalization Process Theory (NPT). This self-reported questionnaire provides insights into the work people do in order to integrate and embed new practice in routine care. The NPT is based on the following 4 constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Within the questionnaire, each construct is represented by 4-7 questions. Questions are scored on a 5-point normalization process scale. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of questionnaire scores. Subsequently, the questionnaire findings were discussed during a focus group. Template analysis following the 4 constructs was used for analyzing the results of the focus group.

Results

Overall, 173 of 294 (58.8%) triage staff members completed the NoMAD questionnaire, and 90.2% (156/173) of the participants had used the DOTTS for over 6 months. The digital application was used as much as possible or always by 137 of 173 (79.2%) participants. The overall normalization process score was 3.77 (SD 0.36). The constructs coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring scored 4.01 (SD 0.47), 4.05 (SD 0.45), 3.5 (SD 0.45), and 3.72 (SD 0.47), respectively. Analysis of the focus group discussion showed that the added value of the DOTTS was seen as a quality improvement for the care of pregnant women. Dedication of the complete multidisciplinary implementation team was important for facilitating normalization. Support from the medical staff and proper use by all disciplines involved in the triage were seen as facilitating factors. Participants appreciated training and evaluation, and indicated a need for ongoing training and evaluation in relation to goal achievement.

Conclusions

The DOTTS has been integrated into normal care in daily practice. Evaluation by the NoMAD questionnaire provided a positive overall score. These results are in line with or, in some aspects, better than the results of other evaluation studies. Key factors in the normalization process of the DOTTS in obstetric triage are the shared added value for stakeholders, the dedication of the complete multidisciplinary implementation team, and implementation plans that are tailor made in the practical context of the hospital.

SUBMITTER: Engeltjes B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9250067 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Failure to identify severely ill obstetric patients seeking acute care, and hence delaying treatment, can lead to maternal morbidity and mortality. Triage is the prioritization of patients seeking emergency care, based on clinical decision-making tools assessing medical urgency. While triage has been applied in general emergency medicine for 30 years, there are only a few obstetric triage systems (OTS) and obstetric triage has hitherto been unknown in Sweden. Obstetric triage is more complex than general triage since both mother and fetus require assessment, and pregnancy-related physiological changes must be taken into account. This paper aims to describe the development and an initial evaluation of the first OTS in Sweden. Methods A multidisciplinary team surveyed reasons to seek acute obstetric care and the current patient flow at the largest obstetric unit in Scandinavia, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, with about 10,000 deliveries/year. A semi-structured literature review on obstetric triage was undertaken. Based on the survey and the literature review the first Swedish OTS was developed and implemented. Patient satisfaction was followed by electronical questionnaires. Initial validity evaluation was performed, defined by the system’s ability to identify patients with need for hospital admission, stratified by acuity level. Results The Gothenburg Obstetrical Triage System (GOTS) addresses the patient to one of five acuity levels based on both vital signs and 14 chief complaint algorithms. It entails recommendations for initial procedures of care as well as an acuity form for documentation. Initial evaluation of the system indicates good correlation between need for admission and acuity level. The implementation has provided the staff with an improved medical overview of the patients and patient flow and enabled the unit to monitor emergency care in a structured way. Implementation came along with increased patient and staff satisfaction. Conclusion The GOTS is the first OTS developed in and for Sweden and implementation has improved management of obstetric patients seeking acute care. Patients are now prioritized according to level of acuity and the time to assessment and treatment of severely ill patients can be structurally evaluated. Both patients and staff express improved satisfaction with obstetric triage. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07210-9.

Project description:No standardised system of triage exists in Maternity Care and local audit identified this to be problematic. We designed, implemented and evaluated an Obstetric Triage System in a large UK maternity unit. This includes a standard clinical triage assessment by a midwife, within 15 min of attendance, leading to assignment to a category of clinical urgency (on a 4-category scale). This guides timing of subsequent standardised immediate care for the eight most common reasons for attendance. A training programme was integral to the introduction.A mixed methods evaluation was conducted. A structured audit of 994 sets of maternity notes before and after implementation identified the number of women seen within 15 min of attendance. Secondary measures reviewed included time to subsequent care and attendance. An inter-operator reliability study using scenarios was completed by midwives. A focus group and two questionnaire studies were undertaken to explore midwives' views of the system and to evaluate the training. In addition a national postal survey of practice in UK maternity units was undertaken in 2015.The structured audit of 974/992 (98%) of notes demonstrated an increase in the number of women seen within 15 min of attendance from 39% before implementation to 54% afterwards (RR (95% CI) 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) p = <0.0001). Excellent inter-operator reliability (ICC 0.961 (95% CI 0.91-0.99)) was demonstrated with breakdown showing consistently good rates. Thematic analysis of focus group data (n = 12) informed the development of the questionnaire which was sent to all appropriate midwives. The response rate was 53/79 (67%) and the midwives reported that the new system helped them manage the department and improved safety. The National Survey (response rate 85/135 [63%]) demonstrated wide variation in where women are seen and staffing models in place. The majority of units 69/85 (81%) did not use a triage system based on clinical assessment to prioritise care.This obstetric triage system has excellent inter- operator reliability and appears to be a reliable way of assessing the clinical priority of women as well as improving organisation of the department. Our survey has demonstrated the widespread need for implementation of such a system.

Project description:ObjectivesScreening for symptoms of postintensive care syndrome is based on a long list of questionnaires, filled out by the intensive care unit (ICU) survivor and manually reviewed by the health professional. This is an inefficient and time-consuming process. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a web-based triage tool and to compare the outcomes from web-based questionnaires to those from paper-based questionnaires.DesignA mixed-methods study.SettingNine Dutch ICU follow-up clinics.Participants221 ICU survivors and 14 health professionals.InterventionsA web-based triage tool was implemented by nine ICU follow-up clinics. End users, that is, health professionals were interviewed in order to evaluate the feasibility of the triage tool. ICU survivors were invited to fill out web-based questionnaires 3 months after hospital discharge.Primary outcomesOutcomes of the questionnaires were merged with clinical data from a national quality registry to assess the differences in outcomes between paper-based and web-based questionnaires.Results221 ICU survivors received an invitation to fill out questionnaires, 93 (42.1%) survivors did not respond to the invitation. Respondents to the web-based questionnaires (n=54) were significantly younger and had a significantly longer ICU stay than those who preferred the paper-based questionnaires (n=74). The prevalence of mental, physical and nutritional problems was high, although comparable between the groups. Health professionals' interviews revealed that the software was complex to use (n=8) and although emailing survivors is very convenient, not all survivors have an email address (n=7).ConclusionsWeb-based screening software has major benefits compared with paper-based screening. However, implementation has shown to be rather difficult and there are important barriers to consider. Although different in age, the health status is comparable between the users of the web-based questionnaire and paper-based questionnaire.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate service use, clinical outcomes and user experience related to telephone-based digital triage in urgent care.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for literature published between 1 March 2000 and 1 April 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies of any design investigating patterns of triage advice, wider service use, clinical outcomes and user experience relating to telephone based digital triage in urgent care.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers extracted data and conducted quality assessments using the mixed methods appraisal tool. Narrative synthesis was used to analyse findings.ResultsThirty-one studies were included, with the majority being UK based; most investigated nurse-led digital triage (n=26). Eight evaluated the impact on wider healthcare service use following digital triage implementation, typically reporting reduction or no change in service use. Six investigated patient level service use, showing mixed findings relating to patients' adherence with triage advice. Evaluation of clinical outcomes was limited. Four studies reported on hospitalisation rates of digitally triaged patients and highlighted potential triage errors where patients appeared to have not been given sufficiently high urgency advice. Overall, service users reported high levels of satisfaction, in studies of both clinician and non-clinician led digital triage, but with some dissatisfaction over the relevance and number of triage questions.ConclusionsFurther research is needed into patient level service use, including patients' adherence with triage advice and how this influences subsequent use of services. Further evaluation of clinical outcomes using larger datasets and comparison of different digital triage systems is needed to explore consistency and safety. The safety and effectiveness of non-clinician led digital triage also needs evaluation. Such evidence should contribute to improvement of digital triage tools and service delivery.Prospero registration numberCRD42020178500.