Factors related to the implementation and use of an innovation in cancer surgery

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.

METHODS

This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.

RESULTS

The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.

Barriers and facilitators to the integration of depression services in primary care in Vietnam: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Although the prevalence of depression in Vietnam is on par with global rates, services for depression are limited. The government of Vietnam has prioritized enhancing depression care through primary healthcare (PHC) and efforts are currently underway to test and scale-up psychosocial interventions throughout the country. With these initiatives in progress, it is important to understand implementation factors that might influence the successful integration of depression services into PHC. As the implementers of these new interventions, primary care providers (PHPs) are well placed to provide important insight into implementation factors affecting the integration of depression services into PHC. This mixed-methods study examines factors at the individual, organizational and structural levels that may act as barriers and facilitators to the integration of depression services into PHC in Vietnam from the perspective of PHPs.

METHODS

Data collection took place in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2014. We conducted semi-structured interviews with PHPs (n = 30) at commune health centres and outpatient clinics in one rural and one urban district of Hanoi. Theoretical thematic analysis was used to analyse interview data. We administered an online survey to PHPs at n = 150 randomly selected communes across Hanoi. N = 226 PHPs responded to the survey. We used descriptive statistics to describe the study variables acting as barriers and facilitators and used a chi-square test of independence to indicate statistically significant (p < .05) associations between study variables and the profession, location and gender of PHPs.

RESULTS

Individual-level barriers include low level of knowledge and familiarity with depression among PHPs. Organizational barriers include low resource availability in PHC and low managerial discretion. Barriers at the structural level include limited mental health training among all PHPs and the existing programmatic structure of PHC in Vietnam, which sets mental health apart from general services. Facilitators at the individual level include positive attitudes among PHPs towards people with depression and interest in undergoing enhanced training in depression service delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

While facilitating factors at the individual level are encouraging, considerable barriers at the structural level must be addressed to ensure the successful integration of depression services into PHC in Vietnam.

Uptake and impact of synoptic reporting in a community care setting

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer surgeries have traditionally been documented in narrative reports. Narrative reports have been shown to be incomplete. Synoptic reports utilize standardized templates to record data and have emerged as an alternative to narrative reports. This study evaluates the uptake and impact of synoptic reporting for breast cancer surgery in a community care setting.

METHODS

A retrospective review of operative reports documenting breast cancer surgeries over a consecutive 3-year period.

RESULTS

772 narrative reports and 158 synoptic reports were reviewed. Synoptic reports were associated with a higher degree of overall completeness (60% vs 45%) when compared to narrative reports. 6 out of 7 surgeons that produced at least 5 synoptic and 5 narrative reports had increases in completeness with use of synoptic reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of synoptic reporting improves breast cancer operative report completeness and decreases superfluous content when compared to narrative reports. While synoptic report uptake during the study period was suboptimal there exists several means by which it can be improved, including investment in information technology infrastructure and emphasis on stakeholder engagement.

Health System-Level Factors Influence the Implementation of Complex Innovations in Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

The movement of new knowledge and tools into healthcare settings continues to be a slow, complex and poorly understood process. In this paper, we present the system-level factors important to the implementation of synoptic reporting tools in two initiatives (or cases) in Nova Scotia, Canada.

METHODS

This study used case study methodology. Data were collected through interviews with key informants, document analysis, non-participant observation and tool use/examination. Analysis involved production of case histories, analysis of each case and a cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

The healthcare system's delivery and support structure, information technology infrastructure, policy environment and history of collaboration and inter-organizational relationships influenced tool implementation in the two cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide an in-depth, nuanced understanding of how healthcare system components can influence the implementation of a new tool in clinical practice.

Diffusion of Electronic Medical Record Based Public Hospital Information Systems

Objectives

This study was conducted to evaluate the adoption behavior of a newly developed Electronic Medical Record (EMR)-based information system (IS) at three public hospitals in Korea with a focus on doctors and nurses.

Methods

User satisfaction scores from four performance layers were analyzed before and two times after the newly develop system was introduced to evaluate the adoption process of the IS with Rogers' diffusion theory.

Results

The 'intention to use' scores, the most important indicator for determining whether or not to adopt the IS in Rogers' confirmation stage for doctors, were very high in the third survey (4.21). In addition, the scores for 'reduced medication errors', which is the key indicator for evaluating the success of the IS, increased in the third survey for both doctors and nurses. The factors influencing 'intention to use' with a high odds ratio (>1.5) were the 'frequency of attendance of user training sessions', 'mandatory use of system', 'reduced medication errors', and 'reduced medical record documentation time' for both doctors and nurses.

Conclusions

These findings show that the new EMR-based IS was well accepted by doctors. Both doctors and nurses also positively considered the effects of the new IS on their clinical environments.

Multi-level factors influence the implementation and use of complex innovations in cancer care: a multiple case study of synoptic reporting

BACKGROUND

The implementation of innovations (i.e., new tools and practices) in healthcare organizations remains a significant challenge. The objective of this study was to examine the key interpersonal, organizational, and system level factors that influenced the implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools in three specific areas of cancer care.

METHODS

Using case study methodology, we studied three cases in Nova Scotia, Canada, wherein synoptic reporting tools were implemented within clinical departments/programs. Synoptic reporting tools capture and present information about a medical or surgical procedure in a structured, checklist-like format and typically report only items critical for understanding the disease and subsequent impacts on patient care. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key informants, document analysis, nonparticipant observation, and tool use/examination. Analysis involved production of case histories, in-depth analysis of each case, and a cross-case analysis. Numerous techniques were used during the research design, data collection, and data analysis stages to increase the rigour of this study.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed five common factors that were particularly influential to implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools across the three cases: stakeholder involvement, managing the change process (e.g., building demand, communication, training and support), champions and respected colleagues, administrative and managerial support, and innovation attributes (e.g., complexity, compatibility with interests and values). The direction of influence (facilitating or impeding) of each of these factors differed across and within cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate the importance of a multi-level contextual analysis to gaining both breadth and depth to our understanding of innovation implementation and use in health care. They also provide new insights into several important issues under-reported in the literature on moving innovations into healthcare practice, including the role of middle managers in implementation efforts and the importance of attending to the interpersonal aspects of implementation.

Implementation and use of electronic synoptic cancer reporting: an explorative case study of six Norwegian pathology laboratories

Background

The information contained in histopathology reports on surgical resections of cancer is fundamental for both patient treatment and cancer registries. Electronic synoptic histopathology reporting is considered superior to traditional narrative reporting with respect to both completeness and feasibility of data use. An electronic template for colorectal cancer reporting was introduced in Norway in 2005, but implementation has varied greatly between different pathology departments. In 2012, four pathology departments and the Norwegian Cancer Registry started a new initiative on electronic cancer reporting. As part of this initiative, this study was undertaken to learn more about factors influencing implementation and use.

Methods

Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from six of the 17 public pathology departments in Norway using explorative case study methodology. Methods included document studies, semi-structured interviews with key informants, and audits on actual template use. A systematic analysis of data was conducted based on theoretical models for project management, stakeholder engagement, and individual acceptance of new information technology.

Results

Most key informants had a positive view on synoptic reporting, and five departments had tested the electronic template. Of these, four had implemented the template while one department had decided not to implement it due to layout concerns. Of the four departments using the template in daily routine, one had compulsory use, two consensus based use, while the fourth had voluntary use. Annual average usage of the electronic template in the three departments with compulsory or consensus based use was 92% compared to 53% in the department with voluntary use.

Conclusions

There was a general positive attitude towards electronic synoptic reporting. Reasons for not implementing the colorectal template were specific technical and quality issues not adequately addressed by the project organization having developed the template. A formal assessment of project outcomes with a task force handling such technical issues should accordingly have been established as part of the project. After an organizational decision on implementation, perceived job relevance and practical benefits are factors important for individual template use. Consistent high long-term usage was related to a departmental environment with a consensus based decision on use.

Cross-disciplinary research in cancer: an opportunity to narrow the knowledge-practice gap

Health services researchers have consistently identified a gap between what is identified as "best practice" and what actually happens in clinical care. Despite nearly two decades of a growing evidence-based practice movement, narrowing the knowledge-practice gap continues to be a slow, complex, and poorly understood process. Here, we contend that cross-disciplinary research is increasingly relevant and important to reducing that gap, particularly research that encompasses the notion of transdisciplinarity, wherein multiple academic disciplines and non-academic individuals and groups are integrated into the research process. The assimilation of diverse perspectives, research approaches, and types of knowledge is potentially effective in helping research teams tackle real-world patient care issues, create more practice-based evidence, and translate the results to clinical and community care settings. The goals of this paper are to present and discuss cross-disciplinary approaches to health research and to provide two examples of how engaging in such research may optimize the use of research in cancer care.

Exploring the usefulness of two conceptual frameworks for understanding how organizational factors influence innovation implementation in cancer care

Moving knowledge into practice and the implementation of innovations in health care remain significant challenges. Few researchers adequately address the influence of organizations on the implementation of innovations in health care. The aims of this article are to (1) present 2 conceptual frameworks for understanding the organizational factors important to the successful implementation of innovations in health care settings; (2) discuss each in relation to the literature; and (3) briefly demonstrate how each may be applied to 3 initiatives involving the implementation of a specific innovation-synoptic reporting tools-in cancer care. Synoptic reporting tools capture information from diagnostic tests, surgeries, and pathology examinations in a standardized, structured manner and contain only the information necessary for patient care. The frameworks selected were the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and an organizational framework of innovation implementation; these frameworks arise from different disciplines (nursing and management, respectively). The constructs from each framework are examined in relation to the literature, with each construct applied to synoptic reporting tool implementation to demonstrate how each may be used to inform both practice and research in this area. By improving our understanding of existing frameworks, we enhance our ability to more effectively study and target implementation processes.