The effect of provider- and workflow-focused strategies for guideline implementation on provider acceptance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The effective implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) depends critically on the extent to which the strategies that are deployed for implementing the guidelines promote provider acceptance of CPGs. Such implementation strategies can be classified into two types based on whether they primarily target providers (<it>e.g.</it>, academic detailing, grand rounds presentations) or the work context (<it>e.g.</it>, computer reminders, modifications to forms). This study investigated the independent and joint effects of these two types of implementation strategies on provider acceptance of CPGs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Surveys were mailed to a national sample of providers (primary care physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and nurse practitioners) and quality managers selected from Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). A total of 2,438 providers and 242 quality managers from 123 VAMCs participated. Survey items measured implementation strategies and provider acceptance (<it>e.g.</it>, guideline-related knowledge, attitudes, and adherence) for three sets of CPGs--chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, and major depressive disorder. The relationships between implementation strategy types and provider acceptance were tested using multi-level analytic models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For all three CPGs, provider acceptance increased with the number of implementation strategies of either type. Moreover, the number of workflow-focused strategies compensated (contributing more strongly to provider acceptance) when few provider-focused strategies were used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Provider acceptance of CPGs depends on the type of implementation strategies used. Implementation effectiveness can be improved by using both workflow-focused as well as provider-focused strategies.</p

Predicting implementation from organizational readiness for change: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is widespread interest in measuring organizational readiness to implement evidence-based practices in clinical care. However, there are a number of challenges to validating organizational measures, including inferential bias arising from the halo effect and method bias - two threats to validity that, while well-documented by organizational scholars, are often ignored in health services research. We describe a protocol to comprehensively assess the psychometric properties of a previously developed survey, the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>Our objective is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the psychometric properties of the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment incorporating methods specifically to address threats from halo effect and method bias.</p> <p>Methods and Design</p> <p>We will conduct three sets of analyses using longitudinal, secondary data from four partner projects, each testing interventions to improve the implementation of an evidence-based clinical practice. Partner projects field the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment at baseline (n = 208 respondents; 53 facilities), and prospectively assesses the degree to which the evidence-based practice is implemented. We will conduct predictive and concurrent validities using hierarchical linear modeling and multivariate regression, respectively. For predictive validity, the outcome is the change from baseline to follow-up in the use of the evidence-based practice. We will use intra-class correlations derived from hierarchical linear models to assess inter-rater reliability. Two partner projects will also field measures of job satisfaction for convergent and discriminant validity analyses, and will field Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment measures at follow-up for concurrent validity (n = 158 respondents; 33 facilities). Convergent and discriminant validities will test associations between organizational readiness and different aspects of job satisfaction: satisfaction with leadership, which should be highly correlated with readiness, versus satisfaction with salary, which should be less correlated with readiness. Content validity will be assessed using an expert panel and modified Delphi technique.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We propose a comprehensive protocol for validating a survey instrument for assessing organizational readiness to change that specifically addresses key threats of bias related to halo effect, method bias and questions of construct validity that often go unexplored in research using measures of organizational constructs.</p