Guideline adaptation and implementation planning: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of high-quality practice guidelines for local use has been advanced as an efficient means to improve acceptability and applicability of evidence-informed care. In a pan-Canadian study, we examined how cancer care groups adapted pre-existing guidelines to their unique context and began implementation planning. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, case-study design, five cases were purposefully sampled from self-identified groups and followed as they used a structured method and resources for guideline adaptation. Cases received the ADAPTE Collaboration toolkit, facilitation, methodological and logistical support, resources and assistance as required. Documentary and primary data collection methods captured individual case experience, including monthly summaries of meeting and field notes, email/telephone correspondence, and project records. Site visits, process audits, interviews, and a final evaluation forum with all cases contributed to a comprehensive account of participant experience. RESULTS: Study cases took 12 to >24 months to complete guideline adaptation. Although participants appreciated the structure, most found the ADAPTE method complex and lacking practical aspects. They needed assistance establishing individual guideline mandate and infrastructure, articulating health questions, executing search strategies, appraising evidence, and achieving consensus. Facilitation was described as a multi-faceted process, a team effort, and an essential ingredient for guideline adaptation. While front-line care providers implicitly identified implementation issues during adaptation, they identified a need to add an explicit implementation planning component. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adaptation is a positive initial step toward evidence-informed care, but adaptation (vs. ‘de novo’ development) did not meet expectations for reducing time or resource commitments. Undertaking adaptation is as much about the process (engagement and capacity building) as it is about the product (adapted guideline). To adequately address local concerns, cases found it necessary to also search and appraise primary studies, resulting in hybrid (adaptation plus de novo) guideline development strategies that required advanced methodological skills. Adaptation was found to be an action element in the knowledge translation continuum that required integration of an implementation perspective. Accordingly, the adaptation methodology and resources were reformulated and substantially augmented to provide practical assistance to groups not supported by a dedicated guideline panel and to provide more implementation planning support. The resulting framework is called CAN-IMPLEMENT

Classification schemes for knowledge translation interventions: a practical resource for researchers

Abstract Background As implementation science advances, the number of interventions to promote the translation of evidence into healthcare, health systems, or health policy is growing. Accordingly, classification schemes for these knowledge translation (KT) interventions have emerged. A recent scoping review identified 51 classification schemes of KT interventions to integrate evidence into healthcare practice; however, the review did not evaluate the quality of the classification schemes or provide detailed information to assist researchers in selecting a scheme for their context and purpose. This study aimed to further examine and assess the quality of these classification schemes of KT interventions, and provide information to aid researchers when selecting a classification scheme. Methods We abstracted the following information from each of the original 51 classification scheme articles: authors’ objectives; purpose of the scheme and field of application; socioecologic level (individual, organizational, community, system); adaptability (broad versus specific); target group (patients, providers, policy-makers), intent (policy, education, practice), and purpose (dissemination versus implementation). Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the development of each classification scheme using an adapted version of the AGREE II tool. Based on these assessments, two independent reviewers reached consensus about whether to recommend each scheme for researcher use, or not. Results Of the 51 original classification schemes, we excluded seven that were not specific classification schemes, not accessible or duplicates. Of the remaining 44 classification schemes, nine were not recommended. Of the 35 recommended classification schemes, ten focused on behaviour change and six focused on population health. Many schemes (n = 29) addressed practice considerations. Fewer schemes addressed educational or policy objectives. Twenty-five classification schemes had broad applicability, six were specific, and four had elements of both. Twenty-three schemes targeted health providers, nine targeted both patients and providers and one targeted policy-makers. Most classification schemes were intended for implementation rather than dissemination. Conclusions Thirty-five classification schemes of KT interventions were developed and reported with sufficient rigour to be recommended for use by researchers interested in KT in healthcare. Our additional categorization and quality analysis will aid in selecting suitable classification schemes for research initiatives in the field of implementation science

Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol

Background There is growing recognition that “context” can and does modify the effects of implementation interventions aimed at increasing healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what exactly comprises “context” is lacking. The purpose of this research program is to develop, refine, and validate a framework that identifies the key domains of context (and their features) that can facilitate or hinder (1) healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. Methods/design A multi-phased investigation of context using mixed methods will be conducted. The first phase is a concept analysis of context using the Walker and Avant method to distinguish between the defining and irrelevant attributes of context. This phase will result in a preliminary framework for context that identifies its important domains and their features according to the published literature. The second phase is a secondary analysis of qualitative data from 13 studies of interviews with 312 healthcare professionals on the perceived barriers and enablers to their application of research evidence in clinical practice. These data will be analyzed inductively using constant comparative analysis. For the third phase, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with key health system stakeholders and change agents to elicit their knowledge and beliefs about the contextual features that influence the effectiveness of implementation interventions and healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice. Results from all three phases will be synthesized using a triangulation protocol to refine the context framework drawn from the concept analysis. The framework will then be assessed for content validity using an iterative Delphi approach with international experts (researchers and health system stakeholders/change agents). Discussion This research program will result in a framework that identifies the domains of context and their features that can facilitate or hinder: (1) healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. The framework will increase the conceptual clarity of the term “context” for advancing implementation science, improving healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice, and providing greater understanding of what interventions are likely to be effective in which contexts

Exploring why quality circles work in primary health care: a realist review protocol

BACKGROUND: Quality circles (QCs) are commonly used in primary health care in Europe to consider and improve standard practice over time. They represent a complex social intervention that occurs within the fast-changing system of primary health care. Numerous controlled trials, reviews, and studies have shown small but unpredictable positive effect sizes on behavior change. Although QCs seem to be effective, stakeholders have difficulty understanding how the results are achieved and in generalizing the results with confidence. They also lack understanding of the active components of QCs which result in changes in the behavior of health care professionals. This protocol for a realist synthesis will examine how configurations of components and the contextual features of QCs influence their performance. METHODS/DESIGN: Stakeholder interviews and a scoping search revealed the processes of QCs and helped to describe their core components and underlying theories. After clarifying their historical and geographical distribution, a purposive and systematic search was developed to identify relevant papers to answer the research questions, which are: understanding why, how, and when QCs work, over what time frame, and in what circumstances. After selecting and abstracting appropriate data, configurations of contexts and mechanisms which influence the outcome of QCs within each study will be identified. Studies will be grouped by similar propositional statements in order to identify patterns and validation from stakeholders sought. Finally, theories will be explored in order to explain these patterns and to help stakeholders maintain and improve QC performance. DISCUSSION: Analyzing context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) patterns will reveal how QCs work and how contextual factors interact to influence their outcome. The aim is to investigate unique configurations that enable them to improve the performance of health care professionals. Using a standardized reporting system, this realist review will allow the research questions to be answered to the satisfaction of key stakeholders and enable on-going critical examination and dissemination of the findings. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004826

Why (we think) facilitation works: insights from organizational learning theory

Abstract Background Facilitation is a guided interactional process that has been popularized in health care. Its popularity arises from its potential to support uptake and application of scientific knowledge that stands to improve clinical and managerial decision-making, practice, and ultimately patient outcomes and organizational performance. While this popular concept has garnered attention in health services research, we know that both the content of facilitation and its impact on knowledge implementation vary. The basis of this variation is poorly understood, and understanding is hampered by a lack of conceptual clarity. Discussion In this paper, we argue that our understanding of facilitation and its effects is limited in part by a lack of clear theoretical grounding. We propose a theoretical home for facilitation in organizational learning theory. Referring to extant literature on facilitation and drawing on theoretical literature, we discuss the features of facilitation that suggest its role in contributing to learning capacity. We describe how facilitation may contribute to generating knowledge about the application of new scientific knowledge in health-care organizations. Summary Facilitation’s promise, we suggest, lies in its potential to stimulate higher-order learning in organizations through experimenting with, generating learning about, and sustaining small-scale adaptations to organizational processes and work routines. The varied effectiveness of facilitation observed in the literature is associated with the presence or absence of factors known to influence organizational learning, since facilitation itself appears to act as a learning mechanism. We offer propositions regarding the relationships between facilitation processes and key organizational learning concepts that have the potential to guide future work to further our understanding of the role that facilitation plays in learning and knowledge generation