Dataset Information

"Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Evidence use within learning health care systems can improve patient health outcomes. Embedded in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) since 2007, the Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides tailored evidence synthesis services to support VHA's learning health care system goals. As part of the ESP's ongoing quality improvement efforts, we have been surveying our users since 2016. METHODS:We reviewed data from a survey of end-users received between September 5, 2016, and June 10, 2019. The survey assessed: (1) nature of decision-making needs; (2) actions resulting from the report's findings; (3) implementation timeframe; and (4) overall perception of report content. RESULTS:Feedback was received from 66 of the 138 operational partners requesting ESP products during the fiscal year 2015 through 2018. Requests commonly informed clinical guidance (58%), identified future research needs (58%), and determined VHA-specific implementation strategy (47%). A total of 91% of responders used reports, typically within 3 months after completion (82%). Use was typically for VHA publications and/or presentations to inform VHA policy or guidance (26%), to inform intervention/strategy adoption decisions (23%) and for medical device and therapy procurement decisions (21%). Over half (53%) of respondents indicated that it would be useful for ESP reports to include more guidance on implementing findings. CONCLUSION:Our survey of learning health system decision-makers' actual patterns and timing of evidence use provides valuable new information that can further support development of other health system and evidence producer partnerships and identifies key needs for better supporting health systems' uptake of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Floyd N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6750151 | biostudies-other | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.

Floyd Nicole N Peterson Kimberly K Christensen Vivian V Anderson Johanna J

Medical care 20191001

<h4>Background</h4>Evidence use within learning health care systems can improve patient health outcomes. Embedded in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) since 2007, the Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides tailored evidence synthesis services to support VHA's learning health care system goals. As part of the ESP's ongoing quality improvement efforts, we have been surveying our users since 2016.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed data from a survey of end-users received between ...[more]

PMID: 31517793

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNew artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being developed at a high speed. However, strategies and practical experiences surrounding the adoption and implementation of AI in health care are lacking. This is likely because of the high implementation complexity of AI, legacy IT infrastructure, and unclear business cases, thus complicating AI adoption. Research has recently started to identify the factors influencing AI readiness of organizations.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the factors influencing AI readiness as well as possible barriers to AI adoption and implementation in German hospitals. We also assessed the status quo regarding the dissemination of AI tools in hospitals. We focused on IT decision makers, a seldom studied but highly relevant group.MethodsWe created a web-based survey based on recent AI readiness and implementation literature. Participants were identified through a publicly accessible database and contacted via email or invitational leaflets sent by mail, in some cases accompanied by a telephonic prenotification. The survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsWe contacted 609 possible participants, and our database recorded 40 completed surveys. Most participants agreed or rather agreed with the statement that AI would be relevant in the future, both in Germany (37/40, 93%) and in their own hospital (36/40, 90%). Participants were asked whether their hospitals used or planned to use AI technologies. Of the 40 participants, 26 (65%) answered "yes." Most AI technologies were used or planned for patient care, followed by biomedical research, administration, and logistics and central purchasing. The most important barriers to AI were lack of resources (staff, knowledge, and financial). Relevant possible opportunities for using AI were increase in efficiency owing to time-saving effects, competitive advantages, and increase in quality of care. Most AI tools in use or in planning have been developed with external partners.ConclusionsFew tools have been implemented in routine care, and many hospitals do not use or plan to use AI in the future. This can likely be explained by missing or unclear business cases or the need for a modern IT infrastructure to integrate AI tools in a usable manner. These shortcomings complicate decision-making and resource attribution. As most AI technologies already in use were developed in cooperation with external partners, these relationships should be fostered. IT decision makers should assess their hospitals' readiness for AI individually with a focus on resources. Further research should continue to monitor the dissemination of AI tools and readiness factors to determine whether improvements can be made over time. This monitoring is especially important with regard to government-supported investments in AI technologies that could alleviate financial burdens. Qualitative studies with hospital IT decision makers should be conducted to further explore the reasons for slow AI.

Project description:BackgroundThe National Immunization Program Information System (SIPNI - Sistema de Informação do Programa Nacional de Imunização) in Brazil is a technological innovation management tool that enhances the performance of managers and health professionals in the evaluation and monitoring of immunization activities. In the country, the decentralization of the System is at an advanced stage, but it still faces challenges regarding its operation and use, impacting on its results. This study aims to evaluate the deployment of SIPNI in the state of Minas Gerais, in 2017.MethodCross-section study performed in Primary Healthcare vaccination rooms in 54 municipalities in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, in 2017. A multidimensional questionnaire was used with nursing professionals who work in vaccination rooms, containing questions about the structure (presence of an internet-connected computer, instruction manual, software version, IT professional for technical support, trained healthcare professional, use of communication channels to obtain system information) and the process (activities performed by the staff to operate the immunization information system) of their work. Those questions refer to the components of the information system: system management, immunized-patient records, and Movement of Immunobiological. Implementation Degree (ID) was defined by a score system with different weights for each criterion, according to the importance level observed in it, with a rating of: adequate, partially adequate, inadequate and critically inadequate. For data analysis, median was used as the summary measure, and Pearson's Chi-Squared Test was used for proportion comparison.ResultsMunicipal SIPNI is not adequately implemented and that results mainly from the actions performed in health service units, indicating problems in the use of technology by professionals working in vaccination rooms. The structure was better evaluated than the process, presenting IDs of 70.9 and 59.5%, respectively. Insufficient internet access, inadequate use of communication channels, and lack of professional qualification were some of the identified structural issues. "Movement of Immunobiological" was the best-ranked component (ID = 68.5%), followed by "immunized patient records" (ID = 59.3%) and "SIPNI management" (ID = 50.7%). Partial performance of SIPNI is independent of population size in the municipality and of FSH coverage.ConclusionsSIPNI is still an underutilized technological innovation. There are challenges that must be overcome, such as implementation of the final web version, internet connectivity, and capabilities aimed at the use of information generated by technology. Nevertheless, perspectives regarding SIPNI are positive, with functionalities to optimize activities in vaccination rooms.

Project description:Background Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. Methods We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. Results Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n =?99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n =?94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n =?63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n =?68), yet only 32% (n =?33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n =?28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n =?24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n =?26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. Conclusions Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. Protocol availability The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7

Project description:BackgroundRapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a knowledge brokering programme were used by Australian policy-makers.MethodsThis study used interview data to examine the use of 139 rapid reviews by health policy agencies that were commissioned between 2006 and 2015. Transcripts were coded to identify how rapid reviews were used, the type of policy processes in which they were used, what evidence of use was provided and what reasons were given when rapid reviews were not used. Fisher's exact test was used to assess variation between types of agencies.ResultsOverall, 89% of commissioned rapid reviews were used by the commissioning agencies and 338 separate instances of use were identified, namely, on average, three uses per review. Policy-makers used reviews primarily to determine the details of a policy or programme, identify priorities for future action or investment, negotiate interjurisdictional decisions, evaluate alternative solutions for a policy problem, and communicate information to stakeholders. Some variation in use was observed across agencies. Reasons for non-use were related to changes in organisational structures, resources or key personnel in the commissioning agencies, or changes in the broader political environment.ConclusionsThis study found that almost all rapid reviews had been used by the agencies who commissioned them, primarily in policy and programme development, agenda-setting, and to communicate information to stakeholders. Reviews were used mostly in instrumental and conceptual ways and there was little evidence of symbolic use. Variations in use were identified across agencies. The findings suggest that commissioned rapid reviews are an effective means of providing timely relevant research for use in policy processes and that review findings may be applied in a variety of ways.

Project description:BackgroundPsychological treatment delivered by telephone is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for mild to moderate depression and anxiety, and forms a key part of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) programme in the UK. Despite evidence of clinical effectiveness, patient engagement is often not maintained and psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) report lacking confidence and training to deliver treatment by telephone. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of professional decision makers (both local and national) on the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of telephone treatment in IAPT.MethodsSixteen semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews and one focus group were carried out with decision makers (n?=?21) who were involved locally and nationally in policy, practice and research. The interviews and focus group were coded thematically, and then mapped onto the four core constructs of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).ResultsThe use of telephone for psychological treatment was universally recognised amongst participants as beneficial for improving patient choice and access to treatment. However, at service level, motives for the implementation of telephone treatments are often misaligned with national objectives. Pressure to meet performance targets has become a key driver for the use of telephone treatment, with promises of increased efficiency and cost savings. These service-focussed objectives challenge the integration of telephone treatments, and PWP acceptance of telephone treatments as non-inferior to face-to-face. Ambivalence among a workforce often lacking the confidence to deliver telephone treatments leads to reluctance among PWPs to 'sell' treatments to a patient population who are not generally expecting treatment in this form.ConclusionsPerceptions of a need to 'sell' telephone treatment in IAPT persist from top-level decision makers down to frontline practitioners, despite their conflicting motives for the use of telephone. The need for advocacy to highlight the clinical benefit of telephone treatment, along with adequate workforce support and guidance on best practice for implementation is critical to the ongoing success and sustainability of telephone treatment in primary care mental health programmes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo (1) characterize community pharmacists' and community pharmacy residents' decision making and unmet information needs when conducting comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) as part of medication therapy management and (2) explore any differences between community pharmacists and community pharmacy residents in CMR decision making and unmet information needs.DesignThirty-to 60-minute semistructured interviews framed using a clinical decision-making model (CDMM) were conducted with community pharmacists and residents.Setting and participantsParticipants were recruited from practice-based research networks and researchers' professional networks. Eligible participants had completed or supported the completion of at least 2 CMRs in the last 30 days.Outcome measuresTwo researchers independently coded transcripts using a combination of inductive and deductive methods to identify themes pertaining to community pharmacists' and residents' decision making and unmet information needs in the provision of CMRs. Discrepancies among researchers' initial coding decisions were resolved through discussion.ResultsSixteen participants (8 pharmacists and 8 residents) were interviewed. Themes were mapped to 5 CDMM steps. Participants primarily used subjective information during "case familiarization"; objective information was secondary. Information used for "generating initial hypotheses" varied by medication therapy problem (MTP) type. During "case assessment," if information was not readily available, participants sought information from patients. Thus, patients' levels of self-management and health literacy influenced participants' ability to identify and resolve MTPs, as described under "identifying final hypotheses." Finally, participants described "decision-making barriers," including communication with prescribers to resolve MTPs. Although pharmacist and resident participants varied in the types of MTPs identified, both groups cited the use and need of similar information.ConclusionCommunity pharmacists and residents often rely primarily on patient-provided information for decision making during CMRs because of unmet information needs, specifically, objective information. Moreover, confidence in MTP identification and resolution is reduced by communication challenges with prescribers and limitations in patients' ability to convey accurate and necessary information.

Dataset Information

"Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.

Publications

"Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets