Development and conduction of an active re-implementation of the Norwegian musculoskeletal guidelines

Defining re-implementation

BACKGROUND

The first attempt to implement a new tool or practice does not always lead to the desired outcome. Re-implementation, which we define as the systematic process of reintroducing an intervention in the same environment, often with some degree of modification, offers another chance at implementation with the opportunity to address failures, modify, and ultimately achieve the desired outcomes. This article proposes a definition and taxonomy for re-implementation informed by case examples in the literature.

MAIN BODY

We conducted a scoping review of the literature for cases that describe re-implementation in concept or practice. We used an iterative process to identify our search terms, pilot testing synonyms or phrases related to re-implementation. We searched PubMed and CINAHL, including articles that described implementing an intervention in the same environment where it had already been implemented. We excluded articles that were policy-focused or described incremental changes as part of a rapid learning cycle, efforts to spread, or a stalled implementation. We assessed for commonalities among cases and conducted a thematic analysis on the circumstance in which re-implementation occurred. A total of 15 articles representing 11 distinct cases met our inclusion criteria. We identified three types of circumstances where re-implementation occurs: (1) failed implementation, where the intervention is appropriate, but the implementation process is ineffective, failing to result in the intended changes; (2) flawed intervention, where modifications to the intervention itself are required either because the tool or process is ineffective or requires tailoring to the needs and/or context of the setting where it is used; and (3) unsustained intervention, where the initially successful implementation of an intervention fails to be sustained. These three circumstances often co-exist; however, there are unique considerations and strategies for each type that can be applied to re-implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-implementation occurs in implementation practice but has not been consistently labeled or described in the literature. Defining and describing re-implementation offers a framework for implementation practitioners embarking on a re-implementation effort and a starting point for further research to bridge the gap between practice and science into this unexplored part of implementation.

Impact on radiological practice of active guideline implementation of musculoskeletal guideline, as measured over a 12-month period

Background

An ever-increasing technological development in the field of radiology urges a need for guidelines to provide predictable and just health services. A musculoskeletal guideline was developed in Norway in 2014, without active implementation.

Purpose

To investigate the impact of active guideline implementation on the use of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging most frequently encountered in general practice (pain in the neck, shoulders, lower back, and knees).

Material and Methods

The total number of outpatient radiological examinations across modalities registered at the Norwegian Health Economics Administration between January 2013 and February 2019 was assessed using an interrupted time series design.

Results

A 12% reduction in the total examination of Magnetic Resonance Imaging shoulder and knee, and x-ray lower back and shoulder was found at a significant level (p = 0.05). Stratified analysis (Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination as one group and x-ray examinations as the other) showed that this reduction mainly was due to the reduction in the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging examinations (shoulder and knee) which was reduced by 24% at a significant level (p = 0.002), while x-ray examinations had no significant level change (p = 0.71). No other statistically significant changes were found.

Conclusion

The impact of the implementation on the use of imaging of the neck, shoulder, lower back, and knee is uncertain. Significant reductions were demonstrated in the use of some examinations in the intervention county, but similar effects were not seen when including a control group in the analysis. This indicates a diffusion of the implementation, or other interventions or events that affected both counties and occurred in the intervention period.

Health care personnel's perception of guideline implementation for musculoskeletal imaging: a process evaluation

Background

The increasing complexity and variability in radiology have significantly fueled the need for guidelines. There are many methods for disseminating and implementing guidelines however; and obtaining lasting changes has been difficult. Implementation outcome is usually measured in a decrease in unwarranted examinations, and qualitative data are rarely used. This study’s aim was to evaluate a guideline implementation process and identify factors influencing implementation outcome using qualitative data.

Methods

Seven general practitioners and five radiological personnel from a Norwegian county participated in four focus group interviews in 2019. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, where some categories were predetermined, while most were drawn from the data.

Results

Four main categories were developed from the data material. 1) Successful/unsuccessful parts of the implementation, 2) perceived changes/lack of changes after the implementation, 3) environment-related factors that affected guideline use, and 4) User related factors that affect guideline use.

Conclusions

Our findings show that clinical guideline implementation is difficult, despite the implementation strategy being tailored to the target groups. Several environment- and user-related factors contributed to the lack of changes experienced in practice for both general practitioners and radiological personnel.