Evaluating the context within which continence care is provided in rehabilitation units for older people

Barriers and Facilitators to Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition Implementation Targeting Protein Energy Wasting in Malaysian Hemodialysis Patients

The capacity to deliver intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) for patients on hemodialysis (HD) diagnosed with protein energy wasting (PEW) in low resource settings is unknown. This study aimed to examine the extent of IDPN practice in HD units in Malaysia, and its implementation to treat PEW. We surveyed pharmacists (n = 56), who are central to parenteral nutrition delivery in Malaysia including IDPN. Seventeen healthcare stakeholders engaging with the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework used the Likert scale to rate survey outcomes on IDPN implementation to treat PEW, according to the Evidence, Context, and Facilitation elements. IDPN for HD patients was available in 28 of 56 hospitals providing parenteral nutrition services, with only 13 hospitals (23.2%) providing IDPN to outpatients. Outpatient treatment was concentrated to urban locations (12/13) and significantly associated (p < 0.001) with resident nephrologists. The Evidence domain was rated poorly (2.18 ± 0.15) pertaining to IDPN indication when the oral spontaneous intake was ≤20 kcal/kg/day. The Context domain indicated good adherence to international best practice relating to IDPN administration (4.59 ± 0.15) and infusion time (4.59 ± 0.12). Poor adherence was observed in the Facilitation domain on ’Access to pharmacist and dietitian at HD units’ (2.65 ± 0.21) and ’Access to continuous medical education on managing PEW patients on HD’ (2.53 ± 0.15). The IDPN outpatient service was concentrated to urban hospitals with greater manpower resources. The PARIHS evaluation on IDPN implementation to treat PEW revealed facilitators in good practice adherence for prescribing and administration of IDPN but highlighted major barriers relating to IDPN indication and nutrient calculation.

Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review

AIMS

To identify the key common components of knowledge transfer and exchange in existing models to facilitate practice developments in health services research.

BACKGROUND

There are over 60 models of knowledge transfer and exchange designed for various areas of health care. Many of them remain untested and lack guidelines for scaling-up of successful implementation of research findings and of proven models ensuring that patients have access to optimal health care, guided by current research.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange were identified using thematic analysis and frequency counts.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases were searched for papers published before January 2015 containing four key terms/variants: knowledge, transfer, framework, health care.

REVIEW METHODS

Double screening, extraction and coding of the data using thematic analysis were employed to ensure rigour. As further validation stakeholders' consultation of the findings was performed to ensure accessibility.

RESULTS

Of the 4,288 abstracts, 294 full-text articles were screened, with 79 articles analysed. Six key components emerged: knowledge transfer and exchange message, Stakeholders and Process components often appeared together, while from two contextual components Inner Context and the wider Social, Cultural and Economic Context, with the wider context less frequently considered. Finally, there was little consideration of the Evaluation of knowledge transfer and exchange activities. In addition, specific operational elements of each component were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The six components offer the basis for knowledge transfer and exchange activities, enabling researchers to more effectively share their work. Further research exploring the potential contribution of the interactions of the components is recommended.

Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review

BACKGROUND

Organizational contextual features have been recognized as important determinants for implementing evidence-based practices across healthcare settings for over a decade. However, implementation scientists have not reached consensus on which features are most important for implementing evidence-based practices. The aims of this review were to identify the most commonly reported organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings, and to describe how these features affect implementation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken following literature searches in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 2005 to June 2017. English language, peer-reviewed empirical studies exploring organizational context in at least one implementation initiative within a healthcare setting were included. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Inductive content analysis informed data extraction and reduction.

RESULTS

The search generated 5152 citations. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 36 journal articles were included. The majority (n = 20) of the study designs were qualitative, 11 were quantitative, and 5 used a mixed methods approach. Six main organizational contextual features (organizational culture; leadership; networks and communication; resources; evaluation, monitoring and feedback; and champions) were most commonly reported to influence implementation outcomes in the selected studies across a wide range of healthcare settings.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified six organizational contextual features that appear to be interrelated and work synergistically to influence the implementation of evidence-based practices within an organization. Organizational contextual features did not influence implementation efforts independently from other features. Rather, features were interrelated and often influenced each other in complex, dynamic ways to effect change. These features corresponded to the constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which supports the use of CFIR as a guiding framework for studies that explore the relationship between organizational context and implementation. Organizational culture was most commonly reported to affect implementation. Leadership exerted influence on the five other features, indicating it may be a moderator or mediator that enhances or impedes the implementation of evidence-based practices. Future research should focus on how organizational features interact to influence implementation effectiveness.

Improving patient and staff outcomes using practice development

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of a practice development program, “Essentials of Care” (EOC), on patient and staff outcomes, workplace culture and service delivery.

Design/methodology/approach

A descriptive study design was used to explore the impact of EOC in a district hospital rehabilitation ward. EOC focuses on embedding a person-centered culture within clinical areas and is structured from practice development methodologies. EOC was implemented in a metropolitan district hospital rehabilitation, older person 20-bed, ward.

Findings

Two projects were implemented during EOC. These projects led to nine significant patient and staff outcomes for medication and continence care practices. Outcomes included a reduction in older person complaints by 80 percent, pressure injuries by 62 percent, ward multi resistant staphylococcus aureus infection rates by 50 percent, clinical incidents by 22 percent, older person falls by 14 percent (per 1,000 bed days) and nursing sick leave by 10 percent. There was also a 13 percent improvement in the post nursing workplace satisfaction survey.

Research limitations/implications

This is a single site study and findings may not be suitable for generalizing across ward settings and broader population groups.

Originality/value

The EOC program led to significant improvements for and in clinical practices, staff satisfaction and ward culture. Specifically, the EOC program also identified significant cost savings and brought together the healthcare team in a cohesive and integrated way not previously experienced by staff. Practice development strategies can champion service quality improvement, optimal patient outcomes and consistency within healthcare.

Monitoring and managing metabolic effects of antipsychotics: a cluster randomized trial of an intervention combining evidence-based quality improvement and external facilitation

BACKGROUND

Treatment of psychotic disorders consists primarily of second generation antipsychotics, which are associated with metabolic side effects such as overweight/obesity, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend timely assessment and management of these conditions; however, research studies show deficits and delays in metabolic monitoring and management for these patients. This protocol article describes the project 'Monitoring and Management for Metabolic Side Effects of Antipsychotics,' which is testing an approach to implement recommendations for these practices.

METHODS/DESIGN

This project employs a cluster randomized clinical trial design to test effectiveness of an evidence-based quality improvement plus facilitation intervention. Eligible study sites were VA Medical Centers with ≥300 patients started on a new antipsychotic prescription in a six-month period. A total of 12 sites, matched in pairs based on scores on an organizational practice survey, were then randomized within pairs to intervention or control conditions.Study participants include VA employees involved in metabolic monitoring and management of patients treated with antipsychotics at participating sites. The intervention involves researchers partnering with clinical stakeholders to facilitate tailoring of local implementation strategies to address barriers to metabolic side-effect monitoring and management. The intervention includes a Design Phase (initial site visit and subsequent development of a local implementation plan); Implementation Phase (guided by an experienced external facilitator); and a Sustainability Phase. Evaluation includes developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused and interpretative formative evaluation components, as well as summative evaluation. Evaluation methods include surveys, qualitative data collection from provider participants, and quantitative data analysis of data for all patients prescribed a new antipsychotic medication at a study site who are due for monitoring or management of metabolic side effects during the study phases. Changes in rates of recommended monitoring and management actions at intervention and control sites will be compared using time series analyses.

DISCUSSION

Improving monitoring for metabolic side effects of antipsychotics, as well as promoting timely evidence-based management when these effects emerge, will lead to improved patient safety and long-term outcomes. This article discusses key strengths and challenges of the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01875861.

Swedish translation, adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Context Assessment Index (CAI)

BACKGROUND

The strength of and relationship between the fundamental elements context, evidence and facilitation of the PARIHS framework are proposed to be key for successful implementation of evidence into healthcare practice. A better understanding of the presence and strength of contextual factors is assumed to enhance the opportunities of adequately developing an implementation strategy for a specific setting. A tool for assessing context-The Context Assessment Index (CAI)-was developed and published 2009. A Swedish version of the instrument was developed and evaluated among registered nurses. This work forms the focus of this paper.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to translate the CAI into Swedish, adapt the instrument for use in Swedish healthcare practice and assess its psychometric properties.

METHODS

The instrument was translated and back-translated to English. The feasibility of items and response scales were evaluated through think aloud interviews with clinically active nurses. Psychometric properties were evaluated in a sample of registered nurses (n = 373) working in a variety of healthcare organisations in the Stockholm area. Item and factor analyses and Cronbach's alpha were computed to evaluate internal structure and internal consistency.

RESULT

Sixteen items were modified based on the think aloud interviews and to adapt the instrument for use in acute care. A ceiling effect was observed for many items and the originally identified 37 item five-factor model was not confirmed. Item analyses showed an overlap between factors and indicated a one-dimensional scale.

DISCUSSION

The Swedish version of the CAI has a wider application than the original instrument. This might have contributed to the differences in factor structure. Different opportunities for further development of the scale are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Further evaluation of the psychometric properties of the CAI is required.

Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care

Background

Knowledge translation (KT) is an imperative in order to implement research-based and contextualized practices that can answer the numerous challenges of complex health problems. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides a conceptual framework to guide the implementation process in chronic care. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT. Available instruments on organizational readiness for change (ORC) have shown limited validity, and are not tailored or adapted to specific phases of the knowledge-to-action (KTA) process. We aim to develop an evidence-based, comprehensive, and valid instrument to measure OR for KT in healthcare. The OR for KT instrument will be based on core concepts retrieved from existing literature and validated by a Delphi study. We will specifically test the instrument in chronic care that is of an increasing importance for the health system.

Methods

Phase one: We will conduct a systematic review of the theories and instruments assessing ORC in healthcare. The retained theoretical information will be synthesized in a conceptual map. A bibliography and database of ORC instruments will be prepared after appraisal of their psychometric properties according to the standards for educational and psychological testing. An online Delphi study will be carried out among decision makers and knowledge users across Canada to assess the importance of these concepts and measures at different steps in the KTA process in chronic care.

Phase two: A final OR for KT instrument will be developed and validated both in French and in English and tested in chronic disease management to measure OR for KT regarding the adoption of comprehensive, patient-centered, and system-based CCMs.

Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge on explanatory models and instruments assessing OR for KT. Moreover, this project aims to create more consensus on the theoretical underpinnings and the instrumentation of OR for KT in chronic care. The final product--a comprehensive and valid OR for KT instrument--will provide the chronic care settings with an instrument to assess their readiness to implement evidence-based chronic care.

A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework

Background

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, or PARIHS, is a conceptual framework that posits key, interacting elements that influence successful implementation of evidence-based practices. It has been widely cited and used as the basis for empirical work; however, there has not yet been a literature review to examine how the framework has been used in implementation projects and research. The purpose of the present article was to critically review and synthesize the literature on PARIHS to understand how it has been used and operationalized, and to highlight its strengths and limitations.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative, critical synthesis of peer-reviewed PARIHS literature published through March 2009. We synthesized findings through a three-step process using semi-structured data abstraction tools and group consensus.

Results

Twenty-four articles met our inclusion criteria: six core concept articles from original PARIHS authors, and eighteen empirical articles ranging from case reports to quantitative studies. Empirical articles generally used PARIHS as an organizing framework for analyses. No studies used PARIHS prospectively to design implementation strategies, and there was generally a lack of detail about how variables were measured or mapped, or how conclusions were derived. Several studies used findings to comment on the framework in ways that could help refine or validate it. The primary issue identified with the framework was a need for greater conceptual clarity regarding the definition of sub-elements and the nature of dynamic relationships. Strengths identified included its flexibility, intuitive appeal, explicit acknowledgement of the outcome of 'successful implementation,' and a more expansive view of what can and should constitute 'evidence.'

Conclusions

While we found studies reporting empirical support for PARIHS, the single greatest need for this and other implementation models is rigorous, prospective use of the framework to guide implementation projects. There is also need to better explain derived findings and how interventions or measures are mapped to specific PARIHS elements; greater conceptual discrimination among sub-elements may be necessary first. In general, it may be time for the implementation science community to develop consensus guidelines for reporting the use and usefulness of theoretical frameworks within implementation studies.

How do people make continence care happen? An analysis of organizational culture in two nursing homes

PURPOSE

Although nursing homes (NHs) are criticized for offering poor quality continence care, little is known about the organizational processes that underlie this care. This study investigated the influence of organizational culture on continence care practices in two NHs.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This ethnographic study explored continence care from the perspectives of NH stakeholders, including residents and interdisciplinary team members. Data were collected through participant observation, interviews, and archival records.

RESULTS

Human relations dimensions of organizational culture influenced continence care by affecting institutional missions, admissions and hiring practices, employee tenure, treatment strategies, interdisciplinary teamwork, and group decision making. Closed system approaches, parochial identity, and an employee focus stabilized staff turnover, fostered evidence-based practice, and supported hierarchical toileting programs in one facility. Within a more dynamic environment, open system approaches, professional identity, and job focus allowed flexible care practices during periods of staff turnover. Neither organizational culture fully supported interdisciplinary team efforts to maximize the bladder and bowel health of residents.

IMPLICATIONS

Organizational culture varies in NHs, shaping the continence care practices of interdisciplinary teams and leading to the selective use of treatments across facilities. Human relations dimensions of organizational culture, including open or closed systems, professional or parochial identity, and employee or job focus are critical to the success of quality improvement initiatives. Evidence-based interventions should be tailored to organizational culture to promote adoption and sustainability of resident care programs.

Development and assessment of the Alberta Context Tool

Background

The context of healthcare organizations such as hospitals is increasingly accepted as having the potential to influence the use of new knowledge. However, the mechanisms by which the organizational context influences evidence-based practices are not well understood. Current measures of organizational context lack a theory-informed approach, lack construct clarity and generally have modest psychometric properties. This paper presents the development and initial psychometric validation of the Alberta Context Tool (ACT), an eight dimension measure of organizational context for healthcare settings.

Methods

Three principles guided the development of the ACT: substantive theory, brevity, and modifiability. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework and related literature were used to guide selection of items in the ACT. The ACT was required to be brief enough to be tolerated in busy and resource stretched work settings and to assess concepts of organizational context that were potentially modifiable. The English version of the ACT was completed by 764 nurses (752 valid responses) working in seven Canadian pediatric care hospitals as part of its initial validation. Cronbach's alpha, exploratory factor analysis, analysis of variance, and tests of association were used to assess instrument reliability and validity.

Results

Factor analysis indicated a 13-factor solution (accounting for 59.26% of the variance in 'organizational context'). The composition of the factors was similar to those originally conceptualized. Cronbach's alpha for the 13 factors ranged from .54 to .91 with 4 factors performing below the commonly accepted alpha cut off of .70. Bivariate associations between instrumental research utilization levels (which the ACT was developed to predict) and the ACT's 13 factors were statistically significant at the 5% level for 12 of the 13 factors. Each factor also showed a trend of increasing mean score ranging from the lowest level to the highest level of instrumental research use, indicating construct validity.

Conclusions

To date, no completely satisfactory measures of organizational context are available for use in healthcare. The ACT assesses several core domains to provide a comprehensive account of organizational context in healthcare settings. The tool's strengths are its brevity (allowing it to be completed in busy healthcare settings) and its focus on dimensions of organizational context that are modifiable. Refinements of the instrument for acute, long term care, and home care settings are ongoing.

Development and testing of the Context Assessment Index (CAI)

AIM

To test the psychometric properties of the Context Assessment Index (CAI).

BACKGROUND

We used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework (PARIHS) as the theoretical framework for the study. The framework shows the successful implementation of evidence in practice as dependent on the inter-relationship of the nature of the evidence, the quality of the context, and expert facilitation. However, a comprehensive method of assessing context has not yet been available.

METHODS

A five-stage instrument development and testing methodology was used. Principal components analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and expert panel feedback were used to develop and refine the CAI model. The model was further tested for psychometric properties of internal consistency and test-retest scores. Telephone interviews were conducted with expert nurses to gauge the usability of the instrument. These stages of development and testing resulted in a final 37-item, five-factor CAI model.

FINDINGS

This 37-item model was accepted as a reasonable explanation of the data. The measures of homogeneity were calculated for each of the five factors to measure internal reliability. The Cronbach's alpha score for the complete questionnaire was estimated at 0.93. All five factors achieved a satisfactory estimated level of internal consistency in scoring, ranging from 0.78 to 0.91. Test-retest scores indicate reliability of the findings, and the feedback from focus group participants suggests that the instrument has practical utility.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAI provides clinicians with the means to assess and understand the context in which they work and the effect this has on using evidence in practice.

Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges

BACKGROUND

The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified.

DISCUSSION

This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model - important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally.

SUMMARY

The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.