A Healthcare Improvement Initiative to Increase Multidisciplinary Pain Management Referrals for Youth with Sickle Cell Disease

Beyond Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle - staff perceptions on facilitators and barriers to the implementation of telepresence robots in long-term care

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) programs with technology implementations have been introduced to long-term care (LTC) to improve residents' quality of life. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is commonly adopted in QI projects. There should be an appropriate investment of resources to enhance learning from iterative PDSA cycles. Recently, scholars explored possibilities of implementation science (IS) with QI methods to increase QI projects' generalisability and make them more widely applicable in other healthcare contexts. To date, scant examples demonstrate the complementary use of the two methods in QI projects involving technology implementation. This qualitative study explores staff and leadership teams' perspectives on facilitators and barriers of a QI project to implement telepresence robots in LTC guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

We employed purposive and snowballing methods to recruit 22 participants from two LTC in British Columbia, Canada: operational and unit leaders and interdisciplinary staff, including nursing staff, care aides, and allied health practitioners. CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted through in-person and virtual meetings. Thematic analysis was employed to generate insights into participants' perspectives.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified three themes: (a) The essential needs for family-resident connections, (b) Meaningful engagement builds partnership, and (c) Training and timely support gives confidence. Based on the findings and CFIR guidance, we demonstrate how to plan strategies in upcoming PDSA cycles and offer an easy-to-use tool 'START' to encourage the practical application of evidence-based strategies in technology implementation: Share benefits and failures; Tailor planning with staff partners; Acknowledge staff concerns; Recruit opinion leaders early; and Target residents' needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study offers pragmatic insights into the complementary application of CFIR with PDSA methods in QI projects on implementing technologies in LTC. Healthcare leaders should consider evidence-based strategies in implementing innovations beyond PDSA cycles.

Implementation science in adolescent healthcare research: an integrative review

Background

Multiple theories, models and frameworks have been developed to assist implementation of evidence-based practice. However, to date there has been no review of implementation literature specific to adolescent healthcare. This integrative review therefore aimed to determine what implementation science theories, models and frameworks have been applied, what elements of these frameworks have been identified as influential in promoting the implementation and sustainability of service intervention, and to what extent, in what capacity and at what time points has the contribution of adolescent consumer perspectives on evidence implementation been considered. 

Methods

An integrative design was used and reported based on a modified form of the PRISMA (2020) checklist. Seven databases were searched for English language primary research which included any implementation science theory, model or framework developed for/with adolescents or applied in relation to adolescent healthcare services within the past 10 years. Content and thematic analysis were applied with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) used to frame analysis of the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of evidence-informed interventions within youth health settings.

Results

From 8717 citations, 13 papers reporting 12 studies were retained. Nine different implementation science theories, frameworks or approaches were applied; six of 12 studies used the CFIR, solely or with other models. All CFIR domains were represented as facilitators and barriers for implementation in included studies. However, there was little or no inclusion of adolescents in the development or review of these initiatives. Only three mentioned youth input, occurring in the pre-implementation or implementation stages.

Conclusions

The few studies found for this review highlight the internationally under-developed nature of this topic. Flagging the importance of the unique characteristics of this particular age group, and of the interventions and strategies to target it, the minimal input of adolescent consumers is cause for concern. Further research is clearly needed and must ensure that youth consumers are engaged from the start and consistently throughout; that their voice is prioritised and not tokenistic; that their contribution is taken seriously. Only then will age-appropriate evidence implementation enable innovations in youth health services to achieve the evidence-based outcomes they offer.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020201142 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=201142

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07941-3.