From theory to 'measurement' in complex interventions: methodological lessons from the development of an e-health normalisation instrument

<b>Background</b> Although empirical and theoretical understanding of processes of implementation in health care is advancing, translation of theory into structured measures that capture the complex interplay between interventions, individuals and context remain limited. This paper aimed to (1) describe the process and outcome of a project to develop a theory-based instrument for measuring implementation processes relating to e-health interventions; and (2) identify key issues and methodological challenges for advancing work in this field.<p></p> <b>Methods</b> A 30-item instrument (Technology Adoption Readiness Scale (TARS)) for measuring normalisation processes in the context of e-health service interventions was developed on the basis on Normalization Process Theory (NPT). NPT focuses on how new practices become routinely embedded within social contexts. The instrument was pre-tested in two health care settings in which e-health (electronic facilitation of healthcare decision-making and practice) was used by health care professionals.<p></p> <b>Results</b> The developed instrument was pre-tested in two professional samples (N = 46; N = 231). Ratings of items representing normalisation 'processes' were significantly related to staff members' perceptions of whether or not e-health had become 'routine'. Key methodological challenges are discussed in relation to: translating multi-component theoretical constructs into simple questions; developing and choosing appropriate outcome measures; conducting multiple-stakeholder assessments; instrument and question framing; and more general issues for instrument development in practice contexts.<p></p> <b>Conclusions</b> To develop theory-derived measures of implementation process for progressing research in this field, four key recommendations are made relating to (1) greater attention to underlying theoretical assumptions and extent of translation work required; (2) the need for appropriate but flexible approaches to outcomes measurement; (3) representation of multiple perspectives and collaborative nature of work; and (4) emphasis on generic measurement approaches that can be flexibly tailored to particular contexts of study

Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol

<b>Background</b> Understanding implementation processes is key to ensuring that complex interventions in healthcare are taken up in practice and thus maximize intended benefits for service provision and (ultimately) care to patients. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides a framework for understanding how a new intervention becomes part of normal practice. This study aims to develop and validate simple generic tools derived from NPT, to be used to improve the implementation of complex healthcare interventions.<p></p> <b>Objectives</b> The objectives of this study are to: develop a set of NPT-based measures and formatively evaluate their use for identifying implementation problems and monitoring progress; conduct preliminary evaluation of these measures across a range of interventions and contexts, and identify factors that affect this process; explore the utility of these measures for predicting outcomes; and develop an online users’ manual for the measures.<p></p> <b>Methods</b> A combination of qualitative (workshops, item development, user feedback, cognitive interviews) and quantitative (survey) methods will be used to develop NPT measures, and test the utility of the measures in six healthcare intervention settings.<p></p> <b>Discussion</b> The measures developed in the study will be available for use by those involved in planning, implementing, and evaluating complex interventions in healthcare and have the potential to enhance the chances of their implementation, leading to sustained changes in working practices

A cluster randomized controlled trial aimed at implementation of local quality improvement collaboratives to improve prescribing and test ordering performance of general practitioners: Study Protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of guidelines in general practice is not optimal. Although evidence-based methods to improve guideline adherence are available, variation in physician adherence to general practice guidelines remains relatively high. The objective for this study is to transfer a quality improvement strategy based on audit, feedback, educational materials, and peer group discussion moderated by local opinion leaders to the field. The research questions are: is the multifaceted strategy implemented on a large scale as planned?; what is the effect on general practitioners' (GPs) test ordering and prescribing behaviour?; and what are the costs of implementing the strategy?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In order to evaluate the effects, costs and feasibility of this new strategy we plan a multi-centre cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a balanced incomplete block design. Local GP groups in the south of the Netherlands already taking part in pharmacotherapeutic audit meeting groups, will be recruited by regional health officers. Approximately 50 groups of GPs will be randomly allocated to two arms. These GPs will be offered two different balanced sets of clinical topics. Each GP within a group will receive comparative feedback on test ordering and prescribing performance. The feedback will be discussed in the group and working agreements will be created after discussion of the guidelines and barriers to change. The data for the feedback will be collected from existing and newly formed databases, both at baseline and after one year.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We are not aware of published studies on successes and failures of attempts to transfer to the stakeholders in the field a multifaceted strategy aimed at GPs' test ordering and prescribing behaviour. This pragmatic study will focus on compatibility with existing infrastructure, while permitting a certain degree of adaptation to local needs and routines.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Nederlands Trial Register ISRCTN40008171</p

A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Based on a critical synthesis of literature on use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, revisions and a companion <it>Guide </it>were developed by a group of researchers independent of the original PARIHS team. The purpose of the <it>Guide </it>is to enhance and optimize efforts of researchers using PARIHS in implementation trials and evaluations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Authors used a planned, structured process to organize and synthesize critiques, discussions, and potential recommendations for refinements of the PARIHS framework arising from a systematic review. Using a templated form, each author independently recorded key components for each reviewed paper; that is, study definitions, perceived strengths/limitations of PARIHS, other observations regarding key issues and recommendations regarding needed refinements. After reaching consensus on these key components, the authors summarized the information and developed the <it>Guide</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A number of revisions, perceived as consistent with the PARIHS framework's general nature and intent, are proposed. The related <it>Guide </it>is composed of a set of reference tools, provided in Additional files. Its core content is built upon the basic elements of PARIHS and current implementation science.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We invite researchers using PARIHS for targeted evidence-based practice (EBP) implementations with a strong task-orientation to use this <it>Guide </it>as a companion and to apply the revised framework prospectively and comprehensively. Researchers also are encouraged to evaluate its use relative to perceived strengths and issues. Such evaluations and critical reflections regarding PARIHS and our <it>Guide </it>could thereby promote the framework's continued evolution.</p

Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): Development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS, framework is a theoretical framework widely promoted as a guide to implement evidence-based clinical practices. However, it has as yet no pool of validated measurement instruments that operationalize the constructs defined in the framework. The present article introduces an Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment instrument (ORCA), organized according to the core elements and sub-elements of the PARIHS framework, and reports on initial validation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted scale reliability and factor analyses on cross-sectional, secondary data from three quality improvement projects (n = 80) conducted in the Veterans Health Administration. In each project, identical 77-item ORCA instruments were administered to one or more staff from each facility involved in quality improvement projects. Items were organized into 19 subscales and three primary scales corresponding to the core elements of the PARIHS framework: (1) Strength and extent of evidence for the clinical practice changes represented by the QI program, assessed with four subscales, (2) Quality of the organizational context for the QI program, assessed with six subscales, and (3) Capacity for internal facilitation of the QI program, assessed with nine subscales.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cronbach's alpha for scale reliability were 0.74, 0.85 and 0.95 for the evidence, context and facilitation scales, respectively. The evidence scale and its three constituent subscales failed to meet the conventional threshold of 0.80 for reliability, and three individual items were eliminated from evidence subscales following reliability testing. In exploratory factor analysis, three factors were retained. Seven of the nine facilitation subscales loaded onto the first factor; five of the six context subscales loaded onto the second factor; and the three evidence subscales loaded on the third factor. Two subscales failed to load significantly on any factor. One measured resources in general (from the context scale), and one clinical champion role (from the facilitation scale).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We find general support for the reliability and factor structure of the ORCA. However, there was poor reliability among measures of evidence, and factor analysis results for measures of general resources and clinical champion role did not conform to the PARIHS framework. Additional validation is needed, including criterion validation.</p

Medication reconciliation at hospital admission and discharge: insufficient knowledge, unclear task reallocation and lack of collaboration as major barriers to medication safety

Contains fulltext : 108640.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Medication errors are a leading cause of patient harm. Many of these errors result from an incomplete overview of medication either at a patient's referral to or at discharge from the hospital. One solution is medication reconciliation, a formal process in which health care professionals partner with patients to ensure an accurate and complete transfer of medication information at interfaces of care. In 2007, the Dutch government compelled hospitals to implement a bundle concerning medication reconciliation at hospital admission and discharge. But to date many hospitals have failed to implement this bundle fully. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the barriers and drivers of the implementation process. METHODS: We performed face to face, semi-structured interviews with twenty health care professionals and managers from several departments at a 953 bed university hospital in the Netherlands and also from the surrounding community health services. The interviews were analysed using a combined theoretical framework of Grol and Cabana to classify the drivers and barriers identified. RESULTS: There is lack of awareness and insufficient knowledge of health care professionals about the health care problem and the bundle medication reconciliation. These result in a lack of support for implementing the bundle. In addition clinicians are reluctant to reallocate tasks to nurses or pharmacy technicians. Another major barrier is a lack of communication, understanding and collaboration between hospital and community caregivers. The introduction of more competitive market forces has made matters worse. Major drivers are a good implementation plan, patient awareness, and obligation by the government. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a wide range of barriers and drivers which health care professionals believe influence the implementation of medication reconciliation. This reflects the complexity of implementation. Implementation can be improved if these factors are adequately addressed. The feasibility and effectiveness of these strategies should be tested in controlled trails