A multi-faceted strategy to improve the use of national fertility guidelines; a cluster-randomized controlled trial

‘Making the most of together time’: development of a Health Visitor–led intervention to support children’s early language and communication development at the 2–2½-year-old review

Background

Early interventions to support young children’s language development through responsive parent–child interaction have proven efficacy but are not currently delivered universally. A potential universal delivery platform is the Health Visitor (HV)–led 2–2½-year-old review in England’s Healthy Child Programme. It is unclear if it is feasible to offer such interventions through this platform. We report an intervention development process, including extensive stakeholder consultation and co-design which aimed to develop an acceptable, feasible and equitable early language intervention for delivery in this context.

Methods

The study involved five phases including 13 stakeholder co-design workshops with 7 parents and 39 practitioners (HVs, early years practitioners and speech and language therapists): (1) Identification of existing intervention evidence, (2) qualitative review of intervention studies extracting candidate target behaviours for intervention and intervention techniques, (3) co-design workshops with parents and practitioners examining acceptability, barriers and enablers to those behaviours and techniques (particular attention was paid to diverse family circumstances and the range of barriers which might exist), (4) findings were analysed using COM-B and theoretical domains frameworks and a prototype intervention model designed, and (5) co-design workshops iteratively refined the proposed model.

Results

Practitioners were committed to offering language intervention at the 2–2½-year-old review but were not sure precisely how to do so. Parents/caregivers wanted to be proactive and to have agency in supporting their own children and to do this as soon as possible. For equitable intervention, it must be proportionate, with higher ‘intensity’ for higher levels of disadvantage, and tailored, offering differing approaches considering the specific barriers and enablers, assets and challenges in each family. The importance and potential fragility of alliances between parent/caregiver and practitioner were identified as key, and so, strategies to engender successful collaborative partnership are also embedded in intervention design.

Conclusion

It is possible to develop a universal intervention which parents and practitioners judge would be acceptable, feasible and equitable for use at the 2–2½-year review to promote children’s language development. The result is one of the most explicitly developed universal interventions to promote children’s language development. Further development and piloting is required to develop materials to support successful widespread implementation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-00978-5.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Social norms interventions to change clinical behaviour in health workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

A social norms intervention seeks to change the clinical behaviour of a target health worker by exposing them to the values, beliefs, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. These low-cost interventions can be used to encourage health workers to follow recommended professional practice.

Objective

To summarise evidence on whether or not social norms interventions are effective in encouraging health worker behaviour change, and to identify the most effective social norms interventions.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 July 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 3 July 2018), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1937 to July 2018), British Nursing Index (2008 to July 2018), ISI Web of Science (1900 to present), PsycINFO (1806 to week 3 July 2018) and Cochrane trials (up to July 2018).

Participants

Health workers took part in the study.

Interventions

Behaviour change interventions based on social norms.

Outcome measures

Health worker clinical behaviour, for example prescribing (primary outcome), and patient health outcomes, for example blood test results (secondary), converted into a standardised mean difference.

Methods

Titles and abstracts were reviewed against the inclusion criteria to exclude any that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently screened the remaining full texts to identify relevant papers. Two reviewers extracted data independently, coded for behaviour change techniques and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We performed a meta-analysis and presented forest plots, stratified by behaviour change technique. Sources of variation were explored using metaregression and network meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 4428 abstracts were screened, 477 full texts were screened and findings were based on 106 studies. Most studies were in primary care or hospitals, targeting prescribing, ordering of tests and communication with patients. The interventions included social comparison (in which information is given on how peers behave) and credible source (which refers to communication from a well-respected person in support of the behaviour). Combined data suggested that interventions that included social norms components were associated with an improvement in health worker behaviour of 0.08 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.10 standardised mean differences) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient outcomes of 0.17 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I 2 of 85.4% (primary) and 91.5% (secondary). Network meta-analysis suggested that three types of social norms intervention were most effective, on average, compared with control: credible source (0.30 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); social comparison combined with social reward (0.39 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.64); and social comparison combined with prompts and cues (0.33 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.44).

Limitations

The large number of studies prevented us from requesting additional information from authors. The trials varied in design, context and setting, and we combined different types of outcome to provide an overall summary of evidence, resulting in a very heterogeneous review.

Conclusions

Social norms interventions are an effective method of changing clinical behaviour in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result was modest and very variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be scaled up to target the behaviour of a large population of health workers and resulting patient outcomes.

Future work

Development of optimised credible source and social comparison behaviour change interventions, including qualitative research on acceptability and feasibility.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016045718.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Beyond the Quality Illusion: The Learning Era

By highlighting the intangible, personal, contextual, and illusory nature of "quality," the authors reconceptualize quality improvement as a pluralistic and moral journey. They imagine a new era of quality improvement in which patients and health care providers work together to understand and achieve quality. The authors recommend, for the path forward, a "travel kit" of 10 crucial elements-compassion, deliberation, flexible goals, ownership, the engagement of patients, the inclusion of payers, the involvement of learners, feedback loops, the fostering of learning, and the application of different sources of knowledge-to reframe quality improvement in a new era of learning.

An innovative implementation strategy to improve the use of Dutch guidelines on hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative strategy to improve implementation of evidence-based guidelines on the management of hypertension in pregnancy compared to a common strategy of professional audit and feedback.

DESIGN

Cluster randomized controlled trial (c-RCT).

SETTING

Sixteen Dutch hospitals.

POPULATION

All patients with a hypertensive disorder during pregnancy who were admitted to one of the participating hospitals between April 1st 2010 and May 1st 2011, were suitable for inclusion; the only exclusion criterion was the presence of lethal fetal abnormalities.

METHODS

Hospitals were randomly assigned to either an innovative implementation strategy including a computerized decision support system (DSS) and professional audit and feedback or a minimal implementation strategy of audit and feedback only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was a combined rate of major maternal complications. Secondary outcome measures included process-related measures on guideline adherence, and patient-related outcomes. A process evaluation was performed alongside.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found in both the occurrence of major complications and most secondary outcome measures between the two groups. Process evaluation showed limited use of the computerized DSS, with a large variation between hospitals (0-49,5% of the eligible patients), but positive experiences of actual users.

CONCLUSION

Using a computerized DSS for implementation of the clinical guidelines for the management of hypertension in pregnancy did not result in fewer major maternal and fetal complications. Limited use of the DSS in the innovative strategy group could be an explanation for the lack of effect.

Optimization of laboratory procedures for intrauterine insemination: survey of methods in relation to clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

There is a wide practice variation of used methods and outcomes in IUI in fertility laboratories. Standardization of the IUI procedure is important for reducing inconsistency among laboratories in counseling infertile couples and in pregnancy results. The aim of the study was to evaluate the currently used laboratory procedures of IUI in Dutch fertility laboratories and their effect on IUI pregnancy results. Additionally, the methods for semen analysis (SA) were evaluated, as SA is related to IUI in terms of inseminated sperm number and IUI counseling.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This questionnaire survey study was sent to laboratories participating in the Dutch external quality control program for semen analysis (SKML) and consisted of 46 questions concerning laboratory management, methods for semen analysis and IUI, and clinical results. The results were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 52 laboratories (out of 99) provided information on used methodologies for SA or laboratory procedures of IUI and the organization of the laboratory. A wide variability was confirmed in used methods for both SA and IUI. Evaluation of pregnancy results obtained during 3 years (2013-2015) showed that specific used laboratory methods have a significant effect on the probability of becoming pregnant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Important to remark is that in this survey study cycle-specific data, including variables of the individual couples (age, stimulation protocol, etc), were not included and may have effects on the results. The reported results provide an overview of the current practice performance; however, the organization of fertility laboratories is changing rapidly. The use of standardized methods in IUI is important for optimizing the performance of care and improving pregnancy results. The knowledge on used procedures, however, is limited, and further research on factors involving SA and the IUI procedure is necessary.

Techniques used for IUI: is it time for a change?

STUDY QUESTION

Are the guidelines for the technical aspects of IUI (WHO, 2010) still in accordance with the current literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In general, the laboratory guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) are a suitable protocol, although the evidence is not always conclusive and some changes are advisable.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Lack of standardization of the technical procedures required for IUI might result in inter-laboratory variation in pregnancy rates. Most centers still use their own materials and methods even though some guidelines are available.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A structural review focusing on the association between pregnancy rates and the procedures of semen collection (e.g. ejaculatory abstinence, collection place), semen processing (e.g. preparation method, temperature during centrifugation/storage), insemination (e.g. timing of IUI, bed rest after IUI) and the equipment used.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A literature search was performed in Medline and the Cochrane library. When no adequate studies of the impact of a parameter on pregnancy results were found, its association with sperm parameters was reviewed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

For most variables, the literature review revealed a low level of evidence, a limited number of studies and/or an inadequate outcome measure. Moreover, the comparison of procedures (i.e. semen preparation technique, time interval between semen, collection, processing and IUI) revealed no consensus about their results. It was not possible to develop an evidence-based, optimal IUI treatment protocol.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The included studies exhibited a lack of standardization in inclusion criteria and methods used.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This review emphasizes the need for more knowledge about and standardization of assisted reproduction technologies. Our literature search indicates that some of the recommendations in the laboratory guidelines could be adapted to improve standardization, comfort, quality control and to cut costs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories (SKML), Nijmegen, The Netherlands. S.K. and W.N. have no conflicts of interest to disclose. C.B. and A.W. are members of the board of the SKML. With a grant from SKML, L.L. was paid for her time to perform the research and write the publication. D.B. received grants from Merck Serono, Ferring and MSD, outside the submitted work.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Clinical practice guidelines for fertility preservation in young women undergoing gonadotoxic treatment: an overview and critical appraisal of methodological quality and content

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the methodological quality and content of internationally available clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on fertility preservation (FP) care in adult women?

DESIGN

Internationally available CPGs on FP care in adult women were identified after conducting an extensive literature search and consulting (inter)national key experts. The methodological quality of the CPGs was appraised by an (inter)national panel of experts using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. The content of the best CPGs, scoring ≥60% for the domain 'Rigour of development' of the AGREE II instrument, was extracted and categorized according to their topic.

RESULTS

Thirty of the 1808 documents found were included. After consulting (inter)national key experts, 30 CPGs were included, six of which scored ≥60% for their 'Rigour of development'. The number of FP-related topics discussed by these six CPGs ranged from 4 to 12. The number of recommendations provided by the CPGs on these topics varied. The number of topics to which ≥5 recommendations were dedicated ranged from 0 to 4 between CPGs.

CONCLUSION

CPGs on the subject of FP care are available, but there is room for improvement in quality and content. Although written for use in daily practice, the CPGs can also be used to develop quality indicators to monitor the quality of current FP care or to evaluate future improvement initiatives.

Implementing targeted expectant management in fertility care using prognostic modelling: a cluster randomized trial with a multifaceted strategy

STUDY QUESTION

What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

19 April 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT

10 July 2012.

Claims for fertility interventions: a systematic assessment of statements on UK fertility centre websites

OBJECTIVES

Fertility services in the UK are offered by over 200 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)-registered NHS and private clinics. While in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) form part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, many further interventions are offered. We aimed to record claims of benefit for interventions offered by fertility centres via information on the centres' websites and record what evidence was cited for these claims.

METHODS

We obtained from HFEA a list of all UK centres providing fertility treatments and examined their websites. We listed fertility interventions offered in addition to standard IVF and ICSI and recorded statements about interventions that claimed or implied improvements in fertility in healthy women. We recorded which claims were quantified, and the evidence cited in support of the claims. Two reviewers extracted data from websites. We accessed websites from 21 December 2015 to 31 March 2016.

RESULTS

We found 233 websites for HFEA-registered fertility treatment centres, of which 152 (65%) were excluded as duplicates or satellite centres, 2 were andrology clinics and 5 were unavailable or under construction websites. In total, 74 fertility centre websites, incorporating 1401 web pages, were examined for claims. We found 276 claims of benefit relating to 41 different fertility interventions made by 60 of the 74 centres (median 3 per website; range 0 to 10). Quantification was given for 79 (29%) of the claims. 16 published references were cited 21 times on 13 of the 74 websites.

CONCLUSIONS

Many fertility centres in the UK offer a range of treatments in addition to standard IVF procedures, and for many of these interventions claims of benefit are made. In most cases, the claims are not quantified and evidence is not cited to support the claims. There is a need for more information on interventions to be made available by fertility centres, to support well-informed treatment decisions.

Barriers and Strategies in Guideline Implementation-A Scoping Review

Research indicates that clinical guidelines are often not applied. The success of their implementation depends on the consideration of a variety of barriers and the use of adequate strategies to overcome them. Therefore, this scoping review aims to describe and categorize the most important barriers to guideline implementation. Furthermore, it provides an overview of different kinds of suitable strategies that are tailored to overcome these barriers. The search algorithm led to the identification of 1659 articles in PubMed. Overall, 69 articles were included in the data synthesis. The content of these articles was analysed by using a qualitative synthesis approach, to extract the most important information on barriers and strategies. The barriers to guideline implementation can be differentiated into personal factors, guideline-related factors, and external factors. The scoping review revealed the following aspects as central elements of successful strategies for guideline implementation: dissemination, education and training, social interaction, decision support systems and standing orders. Available evidence indicates that a structured implementation can improve adherence to guidelines. Therefore, the barriers to guideline implementation and adherence need to be analysed in advance so that strategies that are tailored to the specific setting and target groups can be developed.

Critical factors influencing physicians' intention to use computerized clinical practice guidelines: an integrative model of activity theory and the technology acceptance model

Background

With the widespread use of information communication technologies, computerized clinical practice guidelines are developed and considered as effective decision supporting tools in assisting the processes of clinical activities. However, the development of computerized clinical practice guidelines in Taiwan is still at the early stage and acceptance level among major users (physicians) of computerized clinical practice guidelines is not satisfactory. This study aims to investigate critical factors influencing physicians’ intention to computerized clinical practice guideline use through an integrative model of activity theory and the technology acceptance model.

Methods

The survey methodology was employed to collect data from physicians of the investigated hospitals that have implemented computerized clinical practice guidelines. A total of 505 questionnaires were sent out, with 238 completed copies returned, indicating a valid response rate of 47.1 %. The collected data was then analyzed by structural equation modeling technique.

Results

The results showed that attitudes toward using computerized clinical practice guidelines (γ = 0.451, p < 0.001), organizational support (γ = 0.285, p < 0.001), perceived usefulness of computerized clinical practice guidelines (γ = 0.219, p < 0.05), and social influence (γ = 0.213, p < 0.05) were critical factors influencing physicians’ intention to use computerized clinical practice guidelines, and these factors can explain 68.6 % of the variance in intention to use computerized clinical practice guidelines.

Conclusions

This study confirmed that some subject (human) factors, environment (organization) factors, tool (technology) factors mentioned in the activity theory should be carefully considered when introducing computerized clinical practice guidelines. Managers should pay much attention on those identified factors and provide adequate resources and incentives to help the promotion and use of computerized clinical practice guidelines. Through the appropriate use of computerized clinical practice guidelines, the clinical benefits, particularly in improving quality of care and facilitating the clinical processes, will be realized.

ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction-a guide for fertility staff

STUDY QUESTION

Based on the best available evidence in the literature, what is the optimal management of routine psychosocial care at infertility and medically assisted reproduction (MAR) clinics?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Using the structured methodology of the Manual for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Guideline Development, 120 recommendations were formulated that answered the 12 key questions on optimal management of routine psychosocial care by all fertility staff.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

The 2002 ESHRE Guidelines for counselling in infertility has been a reference point for best psychosocial care in infertility for years, but this guideline needed updating and did not focus on routine psychosocial care that can be delivered by all fertility staff.

STUDY, DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This guideline was produced by a group of experts in the field according to the 12-step process described in the ESHRE Manual for Guideline Development. After scoping the guideline and listing a set of 12 key questions in PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) format, thorough systematic searches of the literature were conducted; evidence from papers published until April 2014 was collected, evaluated for quality and analysed. A summary of evidence was written in a reply to each of the key questions and used as the basis for recommendations, which were defined by consensus within the guideline development group (GDG). Patient and additional clinical input was collected during the scoping and the review phase of the guideline development.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The guideline group, comprising psychologists, two medical doctors, a midwife, a patient representative and a methodological expert, met three times to discuss evidence and reach consensus on the recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE THE GUIDELINE PROVIDES

120 recommendations that aim at guiding fertility clinic staff in providing optimal evidence-based routine psychosocial care to patients dealing with infertility and MAR. The guideline is written in two sections. The first section describes patients' preferences regarding the psychosocial care they would like to receive at clinics and how this care is associated with their well-being. The second section of the guideline provides information about the psychosocial needs patients experience across their treatment pathway (before, during and after treatment) and how fertility clinic staff can detect and address these. Needs refer to conditions assumed necessary for patients to have a healthy experience of the fertility treatment. Needs can be behavioural (lifestyle, exercise, nutrition and compliance), relational (relationship with partner if there is one, family friends and larger network, and work), emotional (well-being, e.g. anxiety, depression and quality of life) and cognitive (treatment concerns and knowledge).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We identified many areas in care for which robust evidence was lacking. Gaps in evidence were addressed by formulating good practice points, based on the expert opinion of the GDG, but it is critical for such recommendations to be empirically validated.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The evidence presented in this guideline shows that providing routine psychosocial care is associated with or has potential to reduce stress and concerns about medical procedures and improve lifestyle outcomes, fertility-related knowledge, patient well-being and compliance with treatment. As only 45 (36.0%) of the 125 recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the guideline group formulated recommendations to guide future research with the aim of increasing the body of evidence.

Improving the implementation of tailored expectant management in subfertile couples: protocol for a cluster randomized trial

Background

Prognostic models in reproductive medicine can help to identify subfertile couples who would benefit from fertility treatment. Expectant management in couples with a good chance of natural conception, i.e., tailored expectant management (TEM), prevents unnecessary treatment and is therefore recommended in international fertility guidelines. However, current implementation is not optimal, leaving room for improvement. Based on barriers and facilitators for TEM that were recently identified among professionals and subfertile couples, we have developed a multifaceted implementation strategy. The goal of this study is to assess the effects of this implementation strategy on the guideline adherence on TEM.

Methods/design

In a cluster randomized trial, 25 clinics and their allied practitioners units will be randomized between the multifaceted implementation strategy and care as usual. Randomization will be stratified for in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities (full licensed, intermediate/no IVF facilities). The effect of the implementation strategy, i.e., the percentage guideline adherence on TEM, will be evaluated by pre- and post-randomization data collection. Furthermore, there will be a process and cost evaluation of the strategy. The implementation strategy will focus on subfertile couples and their care providers i.e., general practitioners (GPs), fertility doctors, and gynecologists. The implementation strategy addresses three levels: patient level: education materials in the form of a patient information leaflet and a website; professional level: audit and feedback, educational outreach visit, communication training, and access to a digital version of the prognostic model of Hunault on a website; organizational level: providing a protocol based on the guideline. The primary outcome will be the percentage guideline adherence on TEM. Additional outcome measures will be treatment-, patient-, and process-related outcome measures.

Discussion

This study will provide evidence about the effectiveness and costs of a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve guideline adherence on TEM.

Trial registration

http://www.trialregister.nlNTR3405. This study is sponsored by ZonMW.

Putting guidelines into practice: a tailored multi-modal approach to improve post-operative assessments

BACKGROUND

The Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) published Postoperative Management in Adults in 2004, advocating post-operative assessments to optimize post-operative care. Our aim was to improve post-operative assessments in a surgical high-dependency unit (HDU).

METHODS

A prospective audit of post-operative admissions to surgical HDU over two 4-week periods was performed. Medical and nursing documentations were reviewed. A tailored multi-modal approach targeting specific barriers to change was used to implement changes; education of staff, introduction of designated HDU bleeps and a post-operative assessment pro forma. Re-audit was performed after 6 months.

MAIN FINDINGS

The first cycle included 72 patients and the second included 62 patients. Time to assessment improved after changes. Forty-six (74%) patients compared with 27 (37%) patients before were assessed within 4 hours. The number of individual reviews increased and number of reviews due to nursing concerns decreased. Thirty-eight (61%) patients compared with 15 (21%) patients before were assessed through an individual review and one (2%) patient compared with 23 (32%) patients due to nursing concerns. Documentation improved. Documentation of relevant past medical history, medications, allergies, complications and post-operative instructions improved from 2 (3%), 1 (1%), 0, 8 (11%) and 26 (36%), to 18 (29%), 28 (45%), 20 (32%), 18 (29%) and 55 (89%), respectively. Difference between first and second cycles was highly significant throughout (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Clinical practice was improved by a tailored multi-modal approach. Educating staff, improving communication and documentation, and re-audit has shown significant improvement. However, further improvements are required to reach best practice.

Improving patient-centeredness of fertility care using a multifaceted approach: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Beside traditional outcomes of safety and (cost-)effectiveness, the Institute of Medicine states patient-centeredness as an independent outcome indicator to evaluate the quality of healthcare. Providing patient-centered care is important because patients want to be heard for their ideas and concerns. Healthcare areas associated with high emotions and intensive treatment periods could especially benefit from patient-centered care. How care can become optimally improved in patient-centeredness is unknown. Therefore, we will conduct a study in the context of Dutch fertility care to determine the effects of a multifaceted approach on patient-centeredness, patients' quality of life (QoL) and levels of distress. Our aims are to investigate the effectiveness of a multifaceted approach and to identify determinants of a change in the level of patient-centeredness, patients' QoL and distress levels. This paper presents the study protocol.

METHODS/DESIGN

In a cluster-randomized trial in 32 Dutch fertility clinics the effects of a multifaceted approach will be determined on the level of patient-centeredness (Patient-centredness Questionnaire - Infertility), patients' QoL (FertiQoL) and levels of distress (SCREENIVF). The multifaceted approach includes audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and patient-mediated interventions. Potential determinants of a change in patient-centeredness, patients' QoL and levels of distress will be collected by an addendum to the patients' questionnaire and a professionals' questionnaire. The latter includes the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument about the clinic's culture as a possible determinant of an increase in patient-centered care.

DISCUSSION

The study is expected to yield important new evidence about the effects of a multifaceted approach on levels of patient-centeredness, patients' QoL and distress in fertility care. Furthermore, determinants associated with a change in these outcome measures will be studied. With knowledge of these results, patient-centered care and thus the quality of healthcare can be improved. Moreover, the results of this study could be useful for similar initiatives to improve the quality of care delivery. The results of this project are expected at the end of 2013.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicialtrials.gov NCT01481064.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.