Using the i-PARIHS theoretical framework to develop evidence implementation strategies for central venous catheter maintenance: a multi-site quality improvement project

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based nursing practice can reduce complications associated with central venous catheters (CVCs). In this project, the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework was considered an ideal theoretical instrument to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing evidence-based practice.

METHODS

The project was conducted in pediatric intensive care units in six Chinese tertiary children's hospitals. Twenty-two audit criteria were obtained from best practice recommendations, and a baseline audit was conducted to assess current practice against best practice. Next, the i-PARIHS framework was used to identify facilitators and barriers to best practice and develop improvement strategies. A follow-up audit was then conducted to measure changes in compliance with best practices.

RESULTS

Facilitators and barriers were identified at the innovation, recipient, and context levels. A comprehensive CVC maintenance strategy was then developed to apply the best evidence to nurses' clinical work. Of the 22 audit criteria, 17 showed significant improvement compared with the baseline audit.

CONCLUSIONS

The i-PARIHS framework is an effective tool for developing targeted, evidence-based improvement strategies and applying these to the clinical setting. The quality of the nurses' clinical practice improved during CVC maintenance. However, there is no certainty that these positive results can be maintained, and long-term data are needed to verify this.

SPANISH ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A185.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Evidence in African Health Care: A Content Analysis With Implications for Action

BACKGROUND

Culture- and context-specific issues in African countries such as those related to language, resources, technology, infrastructure and access to available research may confound evidence implementation efforts. Understanding the factors that support or inhibit the implementation of strategies aimed at improving care and health outcomes specific to their context is important.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine barriers and facilitators to evidence implementation in African healthcare settings, based on implementation projects undertaken as part of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Clinical Fellowship program.

METHODS

Reports of implementation projects conducted in Africa were obtained from the JBI database and printed monographs associated with the fellowship program. A purpose-built data extraction form was used to collect data from individual reports. Data were analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven published and nine unpublished implementation reports were reviewed. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence implementation operate at the health organization or health practitioner level. Health organization-level barriers relate to human resources, material resources and policy issues. Health practitioner-level barriers relate to practitioners' knowledge and skills around evidence-based practice, and attitudes to change. Barriers at the government and consumer levels were uncommon. Only a few facilitators were identified and were related to health practitioners' attitudes or support from the organization's management.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

The study identified a core set of barriers and facilitators in African healthcare settings, which are common to other low- and middle-income countries. These can be used to develop a method by which implementation programs can systematically undertake barrier or facilitator analysis. Future research should aim to develop a process by which these barriers and facilitators can be prioritised so that a structured decision support procedure can be established.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Elimination of Asbestos Related Diseases-Stakeholders' Perspectives

Despite sound scientific knowledge and evidence that any exposure to asbestos fibers in all of its forms, are carcinogenic to humans, its presence, use and trade is still substantial, including in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region. Banning the production and use of all forms of asbestos, as recommended by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and WHO, has been proven as the most efficient evidence-based strategy to eliminate Asbestos Related Diseases (ARDs). To effectively move elimination of ARDs forward, attaining a greater understanding of key stakeholders perspectives was identified as an important action. The WHO Regional Office for Europe, the European Centre for Environment and Health, undertook semi-structured interviews, and follow-up discussions with diverse representatives dealing professionally with asbestos. The interview questionnaire was developed based on the current ARDs WHO Report, the Evidence Implementation Model for Public Health and categories of the theory of diffusion. Data were attained on three main questions within the interview questionnaire: (1) Identifying barriers to implementation of WHO evidence-based asbestos recommendations; (2) Describing roles of key stakeholders; and, (3) Proposing possible solutions. The results demonstrated use of sound and convincing scientific evidence along with economic evidence and facilitators can be used to achieve evidence-based policy development, and comprehensive diverse actions.

Improving osteoporosis care through multimodal interventions: insights from the University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics

Despite the many advances in scientific research over the last several decades, cutting edge technologies and therapeutics often take many years to find their way into widespread use. The dissemination and uptake of best practices into clinical care is sometimes a neglected component of research that is essential to improve the population's health. Type 2 translational research, sometimes called "Proof in Practice Research," seeks to maximize the yield of what has been learned from the bench and from carefully controlled clinical trials and to extend those benefits to a larger population. One aspect of type 2 translational research, sometimes called evidence implementation or implementation science, applies what has been learned about clinical medicine to achieve best practices across providers and health systems. This article describes evidence implementation as applied to osteoporosis care, drawing from several published or ongoing studies to illustrate challenges and potential solutions in improving the quality of osteoporosis care.