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

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

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; 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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods&lt;/b&gt; 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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Results&lt;/b&gt; 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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Conclusions&lt;/b&gt; 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

Implementing mentor mothers in family practice to support abused mothers: Study protocol

Contains fulltext : 97988.pdf (postprint version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence is highly prevalent and mostly affects women with negative consequences for their physical and mental health. Children often witness the violence which has negative consequences for their well-being too. Care offered by family physicians is often rejected because abused women experience a too high threshold. Mentor mother support, a low threshold intervention for abused mothers in family practice, proved to be feasible and effective in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The primary aim of this study is to investigate which factors facilitate or hinder the implementation of mentor mother support in family practice. Besides we evaluate the effect of mentor mother support in a different region. METHODS/DESIGN: An observational study with pre- and posttests will be performed. Mothers with home living children or pregnant women who are victims of intimate partner violence will be offered mentor mother support by the participating family physicians. The implementation process evaluation consists of focus groups, interviews and questionnaires. In the effect evaluation intimate partner violence, the general health of the abused mother, the mother-child relationship, social support, and acceptance of professional help will be measured twice (t = 0 and t = 6 months) by questionnaires, reporting forms, medical records and interviews with the abused mothers. Qualitative coding will be used to analyze the data from the reporting forms, medical records, focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires. Quantitative data will be analyzed with descriptive statistics, chi square test and t-test matched pairs. DISCUSSION: While other intervention studies only evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the intervention, our primary aim is to evaluate the implementation process and thereby investigate which factors facilitate or hinder implementation of mentor mother support in family practice.6 p

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

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; 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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Objectives&lt;/b&gt; 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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods&lt;/b&gt; 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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Discussion&lt;/b&gt; 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 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

Knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention: a cross-sectional and comparative study among nurses

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a common, painful and costly condition. Results of a 1991 study into the knowledge among Dutch hospital nurses on the usefulness of measures to prevent pressure ulcers showed moderate knowledge. Results were confirmed by subsequent studies. In recent years, Dutch guidelines have been updated and the attention given to pressure ulcer care has been increased. This was expected to improve pressure ulcer care and to increase nurses' knowledge. The aims of the current study were to investigate (1) how much nurses employed in Dutch hospitals know about the usefulness of 28 preventive measures considered in the most recent national pressure ulcer guideline; (2) whether differences in knowledge exist between nurses working in hospitals that audit pressure ulcers and those employed in hospitals that do not; and (3) to study whether knowledge among Dutch hospital nurses regarding the usefulness of preventive measures had changed between 1991 and 2003. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design among nurses employed in Dutch hospitals in 2003 was used to investigate their knowledge and differences in knowledge between nurses employed in different types of institution. A comparative design was used to assess whether knowledge differed between this population and that of Dutch hospital nurses in 1991. The nurses' knowledge was assessed by a written questionnaire. Data of 522 respondents meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed and compared with the results of the 351 nurses included in the 1991 study. RESULTS: Knowledge in 2003 was slightly better than that in 1991. The nurses were moderately aware of the usefulness of preventive measures. Nurses employed in organizations that monitored pressure ulcers did not display greater knowledge than those employed in organizations that did not do so. CONCLUSION: Knowledge among Dutch hospital nurses about the usefulness of measures to prevent pressure ulcers seems to be moderate. Being employed in an institution that monitors pressure ulcer care hardly affects the knowledge level. Knowledge about prevention has improved little since 1991

A longitudinal, multi-level comparative study of quality and safety in European hospitals: the QUASER study protocol

although there is a wealth of information available about quality improvement tools and techniques in healthcare there is little understanding about overcoming the challenges of day-to-day implementation in complex organisations like hospitals. The 'Quality and Safety in Europe by Research' (QUASER) study will investigate how hospitals implement, spread and sustain quality improvement, including the difficulties they face and how they overcome them. The overall aim of the study is to explore relationships between the organisational and cultural characteristics of hospitals and how these impact on the quality of health care; the findings will be designed to help policy makers, payers and hospital managers understand the factors and processes that enable hospitals in Europe to achieve-and sustain-high quality services for their patients