Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: A modified Delphi study

Determining Contextual Factors for a Heart Failure Self-Care Intervention: A Consensus Delphi Study (ACHIEVE)

There is a rising recognition of the crucial role self-care plays in managing heart failure (HF). Yet patients often have difficulties implementing ongoing self-care recommendations into their daily lives. There is also recognition of the importance of theory for successful intervention design, and understanding of key factors for implementation so interventions fit a given context. Local key stakeholders can provide valuable insights to help understand relevant context-specific factors for intervention implementation. This study sought to engage stakeholders to explore and determine relevant contextual factors needed to design and facilitate successful implementation of an HF self-care intervention in the German health care system. A ranking-type Delphi approach was used to establish consensus from stakeholders (i.e., clinicians, patients, policymakers/potential funders) regarding eight factors (content, interventionist, target group, location, mode of delivery, intensity, duration, and format) to adequately define the components and implementation strategy of the intervention. Seventeen participants were invited to participate in the first Delphi round. A response rate of 94% (16/17) was achieved and maintained for all three Delphi rounds. Stakeholder consensus determined that nurses specializing in HF are the most appropriate interventionists, target groups should include patients and carers, and the intervention should occur in an outpatient HF clinic, be a mixture of group and individual training sessions, and last for 30 minutes. Sessions should take place more frequently in the beginning and less often over time. Local stakeholders can help determine contextual factors that must be taken into account for successful delivery of an intervention. This enables the intervention to be developed and applied based on these factors, to make it suitable for the target context and to enhance participation to achieve the desired outcomes.

Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of patient-centered care in cardiogenetics: a Delphi study among ERN GUARD-heart members

Current clinical practice regarding inherited cardiac conditions has a biomedical focus, while psychological and social expertize and capacity are often lacking. As patient-centered care entails a multidisciplinary approach, the present study (a) explores barriers and facilitators of implementing patient-centered care in cardiogenetics and (b) contrasts various stakeholder viewpoints and perceived influence. We performed a three-round modified Delphi study using the input of a virtual expert panel comprising 25 medical professionals, 9 psychosocial professionals working in cardiogenetics, and 6 patient representatives. In round 1, the brainstorming phase and workshop breakout sessions were transcribed verbatim, coded and processed into unique statements listed as barriers and facilitators. In round 2, we asked the expert panel to validate, add or revise the list of barriers and facilitators. In round 3, the most relevant barriers and facilitators were ranked in importance. The experts identified 6 barriers dispersed across various levels of implementation. Having a blind spot for the patient perspective was of the highest importance, while the lack of multidisciplinary communication was ranked the lowest. We selected 9 facilitators: 2 were workflow related, 5 advocated various aspects of increased multidisciplinarity, and 2 suggested improvements in patient communication. This study revealed health system and organizational barriers and facilitators predominantly in implementing patient-centered care and only some patient-level factors. Some barriers and facilitators may be addressed easily (e.g., improving communication), while others may prove more complicated (e.g., biomedical thinking). Close interdisciplinary collaboration seems to be needed to implement PCC in cardiogenetics successfully.

Strategic Priorities for Implementation of Father-Inclusive Practice in Mental Health Services for Children and Families: A Delphi Expert Consensus Study

The aim of this study was to investigate expert consensus on barriers and facilitators to the organizational implementation of Father-Inclusive Practice (FIP) in child and family services to establish strategic priorities for implementation. An international panel of 56 experts in child and family service provision and father inclusion were surveyed using the Delphi technique. Three online questionnaires were used to gather opinions and measure experts’ levels of agreement in regard to factors that enable or hinder the organizational implementation of FIP. Survey design, analysis and interpretation was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Consensus was achieved for 46.4% (n = 13) statements. Eight barriers and five facilitators were identified as strategic priorities to organizational implementation of FIP. The key factors were related to the following CFIR themes: leadership engagement, access to information and knowledge, implementation climate, structural characteristics, networks and communication, client needs and resources, external policies and incentives, and reflecting and evaluating. The study findings suggest that issues related to central prioritization, top-down organizational processes and external policy context should represent priority areas for implementation. Our results prioritise methods for improving FIP by highlighting the key areas of organizational practice to be addressed by tailored implementation strategies.

Clinical physiologists' experiences of working with people with nonepileptic attack disorder: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the perspectives of clinical physiologists on working with patients with nonepileptic attack disorder (NEAD). Nonepileptic attack disorder is a medically unexplained symptom frequently encountered by clinical physiologists in the field of neurophysiology. Studies in healthcare professionals show that they often find patients with medically unexplained symptoms challenging, uncomfortable, and frustrating to interact with. Clinical physiologists spend a substantial amount of time with patients and are key to the assessment of the condition. It is not known how physiologists experience working with patients with NEAD.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinical physiologists who frequently work with these patients. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed according to grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

Twelve participants including current trainees and qualified clinical physiologists working in neurophysiology were interviewed for the study. Participants described the experience of working with people with NEAD as anxiety provoking and unpredictable. The sources of this anxiety were the nature of the psychological aspects of the condition, the need to preserve professional boundaries and a lack of preparedness to manage conversations about distress or the psychological factors impacting the NEAD.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a risk that patient care is compromised by the lack of preparation and skills training of physiologists.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physiologists need further training in counseling skills to increase tolerance to emotionally laden content in patient accounts and knowledge of suitable referral routes.