Codifying knowledge to improve patient safety: a qualitative study of practice-based interventions

Translating academic research into guidance to support healthcare improvement: how should guidance development be reported?

Background

There is interest internationally in improving the uptake of research evidence to inform health care quality and safety. This article focusses on guidance development from research studies as one method for improving research uptake. While we recognise that implementation strategies on the ´demand´ side for encouraging the uptake of research are important, e.g. knowledge brokers and university-practice collaborations, this article focusses on the ´production´ aspect of how guidance development is reported and the consequent influence this may have on end-users´ receptivity to evidence, in addition to other demand-side processes.

Main text

The article considers the following question: how is guidance developed and what are the implications for reporting? We address this question by reviewing examples of guidance development reporting from applied health research studies, then describe how we produced guidance for a national study of evidence use in decision-making on adopting innovations. The starting point for reflecting on our experiences is a vignette of the guidance ´launch´ event at a national conference.

Conclusions

Implications for reporting guidance development and supporting improvement are discussed. These include the need to (a) produce reporting standards for the production of guidance to match reporting standards for other research methods, (b) acknowledge the ´informal´ or emergent aspects of producing guidance and its role within a wider knowledge mobilization strategy, (c) consider guidance development from projects as part of a wider knowledge mobilization strategy, and (d) encourage a receptive environment for guidance development and use, including researcher training, durable funding to support impact, and closer relations between research and practice.

The Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Innovation upon Sustainable Performance in Islamic Banks: A Mediation Analysis through an SEM Approach

This research is among the very few studies seeking a focalized examination on the relationship between knowledge sharing within a firm and organizational innovation. This specific study establishes that the knowledge sharing and innovation processes in Islamic banks are integral parts of the survival and progress of business organizations. Knowledge sharing and creativity are essential elements in the development of innovative strategies, but few studies have sought to investigate this relationship. This study proposes a framework with five hypotheses, which predicts the influences of knowledge sharing and organizational innovation on the Pakistani banking sector. This survey scrutinizes the impacts of knowledge sharing and innovation, and its primary objective is to determine how learning in Islamic banks mediates the relationship, and enhances the performance, of Pakistani Islamic banks. The authors distributed a self-administered survey, and randomly selected 554 employees from Mirpur AJ&K, Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan. We screened and tested the data received using SPSS version 25 for analysis purposes to measure the strength of the relationships which exist among the studied variables. The findings indicate that all of the proposed hypotheses have significant positive relationships, proving that knowledge sharing and organizational innovation have mediating impacts upon organizational learning. The findings can also be used to propose a systematic and holistic framework for attaining an improved performance in Islamic banks through the mediating role of organizational learning. This study offers empirical evidence and original data to examine the connection between knowledge sharing, innovation processes and learning culture in Islamic Banks. The generalizability of these findings is restricted to Islamic banks, and the study delivers valuable insights and suggestions for imminent research studies.

Organizational learning in hospitals: A realist review

AIM

To establish a middle-range theory of organizational learning in hospitals.

DESIGN

A realist review of the literature, conducted according to established standards for realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses. Middle-range theory development was performed according to Smith and Liehr's recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Two comprehensive scientific databases and six discipline-focused databases spanning health care, life sciences, business, sociology, and psychology were searched from inception to 12 May 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

Citations meeting the inclusion criteria were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data extraction was guided by a focus on the contextual factors, mechanisms, and outcomes associated with organizational learning.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 2,332 citations, 147 of which were ultimately included in the review. The included citations were generally of high quality. Reviewed evidence indicates certain aspects of organizational context can be conducive to mechanisms of organizational learning, leading to a range of positive organizational outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review updates and expands on a previous review of the literature on organizational learning in hospitals, refines the concept of organizational learning in hospitals, and provides a middle-range theory of organizational learning in hospitals.

IMPACT

This updated review provides a strong evidence base for future work on the topic of organizational learning in hospitals. The refined concept of organizational learning makes it possible to develop reliable, valid research instruments that better reflect of the full scope of organizational learning. Finally, the middle-range theory guides researchers and clinical leaders as they advance the science and practice of organizational learning.

Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

BACKGROUND

Providing health professionals with quantitative summaries of their clinical performance when treating specific groups of patients ("feedback") is a widely used quality improvement strategy, yet systematic reviews show it has varying success. Theory could help explain what factors influence feedback success, and guide approaches to enhance effectiveness. However, existing theories lack comprehensiveness and specificity to health care. To address this problem, we conducted the first systematic review and synthesis of qualitative evaluations of feedback interventions, using findings to develop a comprehensive new health care-specific feedback theory.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception until 2016 inclusive. Data were synthesised by coding individual papers, building on pre-existing theories to formulate hypotheses, iteratively testing and improving hypotheses, assessing confidence in hypotheses using the GRADE-CERQual method, and summarising high-confidence hypotheses into a set of propositions.

RESULTS

We synthesised 65 papers evaluating 73 feedback interventions from countries spanning five continents. From our synthesis we developed Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT), which builds on 30 pre-existing theories and has 42 high-confidence hypotheses. CP-FIT states that effective feedback works in a cycle of sequential processes; it becomes less effective if any individual process fails, thus halting progress round the cycle. Feedback's success is influenced by several factors operating via a set of common explanatory mechanisms: the feedback method used, health professional receiving feedback, and context in which feedback takes place. CP-FIT summarises these effects in three propositions: (1) health care professionals and organisations have a finite capacity to engage with feedback, (2) these parties have strong beliefs regarding how patient care should be provided that influence their interactions with feedback, and (3) feedback that directly supports clinical behaviours is most effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first qualitative meta-synthesis of feedback interventions, and the first comprehensive theory of feedback designed specifically for health care. Our findings contribute new knowledge about how feedback works and factors that influence its effectiveness. Internationally, practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers can use CP-FIT to design, implement, and evaluate feedback. Doing so could improve care for large numbers of patients, reduce opportunity costs, and improve returns on financial investments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42015017541.

e-Roster policy: Insights and implications of codifying nurse scheduling

Following a decade of dissemination, particularly within the British National Health Service, electronic rostering systems were recently endorsed within the Carter Review. However, electronic rostering necessitates the formal codification of the roster process. This research investigates that codification through the lens of the 'Roster Policy', a formal document specifying the rules and procedures used to prepare staff rosters. This study is based upon analysis of 27 publicly available policies, each approved within a 4-year period from January 2010 to July 2014. This research finds that, at an executive level, codified knowledge is used as a proxy for the common language and experience otherwise acquired on a ward through everyday interaction, while at ward level, the nurse rostering problem continues to resist all efforts at simplification. Ultimately, it is imperative that executives recognise that electronic rostering is not a silver bullet and that information from such systems requires careful interpretation and circumspection.

Are there patient-related factors that influence sickness certification in patients with severe subjective health complaints? A cross-sectional exploratory study from different European countries

OBJECTIVES

To develop hypotheses about whether there are patient-related factors that influence physicians' decision-making that can explain why some patients with severe subjective health complaints (SHCs) are more likely to be granted sick leave than others.

DESIGN

Exploratory cross-sectional.

SETTING

Assessments of patient-related factors after watching nine authentic video recordings of patients with severe SHC from a Norwegian general practice. Our previous study showed that three of these nine patients were less likely than the remaining six patients to be granted sick leave by physicians from five European countries.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 10 assessors from Norway, the Netherlands and France.

OUTCOMES

The direction in which the assessments may contribute towards the decision to grant a sickness certificate (increasing or decreasing the likelihood of granting sick leave).

RESULTS

Physicians consider a wide variety of patient-related factors when assessing sickness certification. The overall assessment of these factors may provide an indication of whether a patient is more likely or less likely to be granted sick leave. Additionally, some single questions (notable functional limitations in the consultation, visible suffering, a clear purpose for sick leave and psychiatric comorbidity) may indicate differences between the two patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Next to the overall assessment, no notable effect of the complaints on functioning and suffering, a lack of a clear purpose for sick leave and the absence of psychiatric comorbidity may be factors that could help guide the decision to grant sick leave. These hypotheses should be tested and validated in representative samples of professionals involved in sickness certification. This may help to understand the tacit knowledge we believe physicians have when assessing work capacity of patients with severe SHC.

Study protocol: DEcisions in health Care to Introduce or Diffuse innovations using Evidence (DECIDE)

BACKGROUND

A range of evidence informs healthcare decision-making, from formal research findings to 'soft intelligence' or local data, as well as practical experience or tacit knowledge. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of such evidence into practice. Using a multi-level framework, this project will analyse how interactions between the evidence available and processes at the micro (individual/group) and meso (organisational/system) levels influence decisions to introduce or diffuse innovations in acute and primary care within the National Health Service in the UK.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will use a mixed methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, and involves four interdependent work streams: (1) rapid evidence synthesis of relevant literature with stakeholder feedback; (2) in-depth case studies of 'real-world' decision-making in acute and primary care; (3) a national survey and discrete choice experiment; and (4) development of guidance for decision-makers and evaluators to support the use of evidence in decision-making.

DISCUSSION

This study will enhance the understanding of decision-makers' use of diverse forms of evidence. The findings will provide insights into how and why some evidence does inform decisions to introduce healthcare innovations, and why barriers persist in other cases. It will also quantify decision-makers' preferences, including the 'tipping point' of evidence needed to shift stakeholders' views. Practical guidance will be shared with healthcare decision-makers and evaluators on uses of evidence to enable the introduction and diffusion of innovation.