Most Important Factors for the Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Sciatica Care: Ranking among Professionals and Patients

Introduction

Due to the increasing specialization of medical professionals, patients are treated by multiple disciplines. To ensure that delivered care is patient-centered, it is crucial that professionals and the patient together decide on treatment (shared decision making (SDM)). However, it is not known how SDM should be integrated in multidisciplinary practice. This study determines the most important factors for SDM implementation in sciatica care, as it is known that a prior inventory of factors is crucial to develop a successful implementation strategy.

Methods

246 professionals (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons) (30% response) and 155 patients (96% response) responded to an internet-based survey. Respondents ranked barriers and facilitators identified in previous interviews, on their importance using Maximum Difference Scaling. Feeding back the personal top 5 most important factors, each respondent indicated whether these factors were barriers or facilitators. Hierarchical Bayes estimation was used to estimate the relative importance (RI) of each factor.

Results

Professionals assigned the highest importance to: quality of professional-patient relationship (RI 4.87; CI 4.75–4.99); importance of quick recovery of patient (RI 4.83; CI 4.69–4.97); and knowledge about treatment options (RI 6.64; CI 4.53–4.74), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Professionals working in primary care had a different ranking than those working in hospital care. Patients assigned the highest importance to: correct diagnosis by professionals (barrier, RI 8.19; CI 7.99–8.38); information provision about treatment options and potential harm and benefits (RI 7.87; CI 7.65–8.08); and explanation of the professional about the care trajectory (RI 7.16; CI 6.94–7.38), which were reported as barrier and facilitator.

Conclusions

Knowledge, information provision and a good relationship are the most important conditions for SDM perceived by both patients and professionals. These conditions are not restricted to one specific disease or health care system, because they are mostly professional or patient dependent and require healthcare professional training.     

Designing a strategy to implement cost-effective blood transfusion management in elective hip and knee arthroplasties: A study protocol

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Total hip and knee arthroplasties are two of the most commonly performed procedures in orthopedic surgery. Different blood-saving measures (BSMs) are used to reduce the often-needed allogenic blood transfusions in these procedures. A recent large randomized controlled trial showed it is not cost effective to use the BSMs of erythropoietin and perioperative autologous blood salvage in elective primary hip and knee arthroplasties. Despite dissemination of these study results, medical professionals keep using these BSMs. To actually change practice, an implementation strategy is needed that is based on a good understanding of target groups and settings and the psychological constructs that predict behavior of medical professionals. However, detailed insight into these issuses is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to explore which groups of professionals should be targeted at which settings, as well as relevant barriers and facilitators that should be taken into acount in the strategy to implement evidence-based, cost-effective blood transfusion management and to de-implement BSMs. METHODS: The study consists of three phases. First, a questionnaire survey among all Dutch orthopedic hospital departments and independent treatment centers (n?=?99) will be conducted to analyze current blood management practice. Second, semistructured interviews will be held among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 10 anesthesiologists to identify barriers and facilitators that are relevant for the uptake of cost-effective blood transfusion management. Interview questions will be based on the Theoretical Domains Interview framework. The interviews will be followed by a questionnaire survey among 800 medical professionals in orthopedics and anesthesiology (400 professionals per discipline) in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by frequency and importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results from the previous phases, using principles of intervention mapping and an expert panel. DISCUSSION: The developed strategy for cost-effective blood transfusion management by de-implementing BSMs is likely to reduce costs for elective hip and knee arthroplasties. In addition, this study will lead to generalized knowledge regarding relevant factors for the de-implementation of non-cost-effective interventions and insight in the differences between implementation and de-implementation strategies.     

Effectiveness of electronic guideline-based implementation systems in ambulatory care settings - a systematic review

Background

The potential barriers and facilitators to change should guide the choice of implementation strategy. Implementation researchers believe that existing methods for the evaluation of potential barriers and facilitators are not satisfactory. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are relatively new in the health care sector to investigate preferences, and may be of value in the field of implementation research. The objective of our study was to investigate the complementary value of DCE for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research.

Methods

Clinical subject was the implementation of the guideline for breast cancer surgery in day care. We identified 17 potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this guideline. We used a traditional questionnaire that was made up of statements about the potential barriers and facilitators. Respondents answered 17 statements on a five-point scale ranging from one (fully disagree) to five (fully agree). The potential barriers and facilitators were included in the DCE as decision attributes. Data were gathered among anaesthesiologists, surgical oncologists, and breast care nurses by means of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.

Results

The overall response was 10%. The most striking finding was that the responses to the traditional questionnaire hardly differentiated between barriers. Forty-seven percent of the respondents thought that DCE is an inappropriate method. These respondents considered DCE too difficult and too time-consuming. Unlike the traditional questionnaire, the results of a DCE provide implementation researchers and clinicians with a relative attribute importance ranking that can be used to prioritize potential barriers and facilitators to change, and hence to better fine-tune the implementation strategies to the specific problems and challenges of a particular implementation process.

Conclusion

The results of our DCE and traditional questionnaire would probably lead to different implementation strategies. Although there is no 'gold standard' for prioritising potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of change, theoretically, DCE would be the method of choice. However, the feasibility of using DCE was less favourable. Further empirical applications should investigate whether DCE can really make a valuable contribution to the implementation science.     

Enhanced implementation of low back pain guidelines in general practice: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) is regarded as core competence to improve healthcare quality. In the current study, we investigated the EBP of six groups of professionals: physicians, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, technicians, and other allied healthcare personnel. A structured questionnaire survey of regional hospitals throughout Taiwan was conducted by post in 2011. Questionnaires were mailed to all healthcare workers of 11 randomly selected hospitals. Linear and logistic regression models were used to examine predictors for implementing EBP. In total, 6,160 returned questionnaires, including 645 from physicians, 4,206 from nurses, 430 from pharmacists, 179 from physical therapists, 537 from technicians, and 163 from other allied healthcare professionals, were valid for the analysis. Physicians and pharmacists were more aware of EBP than were the other professional groups (p < 0.001). Positive attitudes toward and beliefs in EBP were significantly lower among nurses than in the other groups (p < 0.001). Physicians had more sufficient knowledge and skills of EBP than did the other professionals (p < 0.001); in addition, they implemented EBP for clinical decision-making more often and perceived fewer personal barriers to EBP (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that EBP implementation was associated with the following characteristics of participants: EBP training, having a faculty position, academic degree, one's profession, and perceptions (beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills and barriers). This study depicts various levels of EBP implementation among medical, nursing, pharmacological, and allied healthcare personnel. There were significant differences in their implementation of EBP. We observed that certain factors were associated with EBP implementation, including personal backgrounds and perceptions toward EBP. The data suggest that strategies for enhancing EBP implementation should differ for various groups of professionals.     

SIMPLE: implementation of recommendations from international evidence-based guidelines on caesarean sections in the Netherlands. Protocol for a controlled before and after study

Background

Caesarean section (CS) rates are rising worldwide. In the Netherlands, the most significant rise is observed in healthy women with a singleton in vertex position between 37 and 42 weeks gestation, whereas it is doubtful whether an improved outcome for the mother or her child was obtained. It can be hypothesized that evidence-based guidelines on CS are not implemented sufficiently. Therefore, the present study has the following objectives: to develop quality indicators on the decision to perform a CS based on key recommendations from national and international guidelines; to use the quality indicators in order to gain insight into actual adherence of Dutch gynaecologists to guideline recommendations on the performance of a CS; to explore barriers and facilitators that have a direct effect on guideline application regarding CS; and to develop, execute, and evaluate a strategy in order to reduce the CS incidence for a similar neonatal outcome (based on the information gathered in the second and third objectives).

Methods

An independent expert panel of Dutch gynaecologists and midwives will develop a set of quality indicators on the decision to perform a CS. These indicators will be used to measure current care in 20 hospitals with a population of 1,000 women who delivered by CS, and a random selection of 1,000 women who delivered vaginally in the same period. Furthermore, by interviewing healthcare professionals and patients, the barriers and facilitators that may influence the decision to perform a CS will be measured. Based on the results, a tailor-made implementation strategy will be developed and tested in a controlled before-and-after study in 12 hospitals (six intervention, six control hospitals) with regard to effectiveness, experiences, and costs.

Discussion

This study will offer insight into the current CS care and into the hindering and facilitating factors influencing obstetrical policy on CS. Furthermore, it will allow definition of patient categories or situations in which a tailor-made implementation strategy will most likely be meaningful and cost effective, without negatively affecting the outcome for mother and child.

Trial registration

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01261676     

Barriers and Facilitators to Engagement With a Weight Management Intervention in Asian Patients With Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveThe obesity epidemic is a global health concern with Asian countries facing one of the most rapid rises in obesity rates. However, given the underwhelming long-term efficacy of weight loss strategies, especially in Asia, this review aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to weight management of patients with overweight and obesity in Asia.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched for articles discussing barriers and facilitators of treatment to obesity from the perspectives of both health care professionals (HCPs) and patients. Qualitative and mixed method studies from Asia were included. Key quotes were extracted, coded, and thematically analyzed according to the methodology of Thomas and Harden.ResultsA total of 26 articles were included in this review. From patient perspectives, 3 main themes were identified: factors influencing poor eating behavior, inhibiting lifestyle modifications, and facilitating lifestyle modifications. Patients highlighted several barriers including the lack of social support, physiologic limitations to exercise, and low health literacy. Rigid sociocultural norms and lack of accessible health care services, exercise facilities, and healthy food exacerbated the barriers. Facilitators to lifestyle modifications consisted of strong support systems and high health literacy. HCPs agreed that low health literacy, lack of social support, and patient motivation impeded patients’ weight loss attempts but were unaware of the other barriers they faced.ConclusionThere are discrepancies between ideas of barriers and facilitators of HCPs and patients. A mixture of population level, primary care, and personal interventions are required to address this disparity, and enhanced health literacy can improve weight loss outcomes.     

De-implementation of low value castration for men with prostate cancer: protocol for a theory-based,mixed methods approach to minimizing low value androgen deprivation therapy (DeADT)

Background

Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial.

Methods/design

This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies.

Discussion

Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680, First Posted July 6, 2018.

     

From Evidence to Best Practice in Laboratory Medicine

Laboratory tests offer value if they provide benefit to patients at acceptable costs. Laboratory testing is one of the most widely used diagnostic interventions supporting medical decisions, yet evidence demonstrating its value and impact on health outcomes is limited. This contributes to wide variations in test utilisation including underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis, which may impact the quality and the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care and patient safety. Therefore implementing evidence into the care of patients is a moral and social imperative to laboratory professionals and all health care staff.This review investigates the reasons research does not get into practice, or only does with a very long delay. Apart from reviewing the common barriers to implementation, it also discusses the drivers of inappropriate test utilisation. By reviewing the theoretical and practical aspects of implementation science, recommendations are made for approaches that are thought to be most effective and that can be adopted to close the gap between evidence and practice, and to facilitate evidence-based laboratory medicine. Passive dissemination of the evidence and educational interventions are insufficient and do not offer sustainable solutions. A multifaceted and individualised implementation strategy, including individually tailored academic detailing, reminder systems, clinical decision support systems, feedback on performance, and participation of doctors and laboratory professionals in quality improvement activities addressing test selection and interpretation and in clinical audits, has greater potential for success. Examples of these initiatives at the laboratory and clinical interface are provided with links to valuable resources.

‘Knowing is not enough; we must apply.Willing is not enough; we must do.’JW von Goethe

     

Differences between neurological and neurosurgical approaches in the management of malignant brain tumours.

The management and outcome in 205 patients diagnosed as having cerebral gliomas over five years were reviewed. Patients referred to neurologists and neurosurgeons had similar clinical features and similar results on computed tomography. Patients referred to neurologists underwent burr hole biopsy less often and had better short term morbidity than patients referred to neurosurgeons, although final outcome was the same in both groups. Few patients underwent other surgical procedures. Referral for radiotherapy was usually by neurosurgeons, although this did not significantly affect long term survival. The implications for the management of patients with primary malignant brain tumours and the need for prospective studies are discussed.     

Barriers,Facilitators and Priorities for Implementation of WHO Maternal and Perinatal Health Guidelines in Four Lower-Income Countries: A GREAT Network Research Activity

BackgroundHealth systems often fail to use evidence in clinical practice. In maternal and perinatal health, the majority of maternal, fetal and newborn mortality is preventable through implementing effective interventions. To meet this challenge, WHO’s Department of Reproductive Health and Research partnered with the Knowledge Translation Program at St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH), University of Toronto, Canada to establish a collaboration on knowledge translation (KT) in maternal and perinatal health, called the GREAT Network (Guideline-driven, Research priorities, Evidence synthesis, Application of evidence, and Transfer of knowledge). We applied a systematic approach incorporating evidence and theory to identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation of WHO maternal heath recommendations in four lower-income countries and to identifying implementation strategies to address these.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study in Myanmar, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia. In each country, stakeholder surveys, focus group discussions and prioritization exercises were used, involving multiple groups of health system stakeholders (including administrators, policymakers, NGOs, professional associations, frontline healthcare providers and researchers).ResultsDespite differences in guideline priorities and contexts, barriers identified across countries were often similar. Health system level factors, including health workforce shortages, and need for strengthened drug and equipment procurement, distribution and management systems, were consistently highlighted as limiting the capacity of providers to deliver high-quality care. Evidence-based health policies to support implementation, and improve the knowledge and skills of healthcare providers were also identified. Stakeholders identified a range of tailored strategies to address local barriers and leverage facilitators.ConclusionThis approach to identifying barriers, facilitators and potential strategies for improving implementation proved feasible in these four lower-income country settings. Further evaluation of the impact of implementing these strategies is needed.     

Barriers and Facilitators for Type-2 Diabetes Management in South Asians: A Systematic Review

Objective

Although South Asian populations have among the highest burden of type 2 diabetes in the world, their diabetes management remains poor. We systematically reviewed studies on South Asian patient’s perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to diabetes management.

Methods

We conducted a literature search using OVID, CINHAL and EMBASE (January, 1990 –February, 2014) evaluating the core components of diabetes management: interactions with health care providers, diet, exercise, and medication adherence. South Asian patients were self-reported as Indian, Pakistani, Malaysian-Indian or Bangladeshi origin. From 208 abstracts reviewed, 20 studies were included (19 qualitative including mixed methods studies, 1 questionnaire). Barriers and facilitators were extracted and combined using qualitative synthesis.

Results

All studies included barriers and few facilitators were identified. Language and communication discordance with the healthcare provider was a significant barrier to receiving and understanding diabetes education. There was inconsistent willingness to partake in self-management with preference for following their physician’s guidance. Barriers to adopting a diabetic diet were lack of specific details on South Asian tailored diabetic diet; social responsibilities to continue with a traditional diet, and misconceptions on the components of the diabetic diet. For exercise, South Asian patients were concerned with lack of gender specific exercise facilities and fear of injury or worsening health with exercise. Patients reported a lack of understanding about diabetes medication management, preference for folk and phytotherapy, and concerns about the long-term safety of diabetes medications. Facilitators included trust in care providers, use of culturally appropriate exercise and dietary advice and increasing family involvement. Overall themes for the barriers included lack of knowledge and misperceptions as well as lack of cultural adaptation to diabetes management.

Conclusion

Diabetes programs that focus on improving communication, addressing prevailing misconceptions, and culture specific strategies may be useful for improving diabetes management for South Asians.     

Cancer screening barriers and facilitators for under and never screened populations: A mixed methods study

BackgroundCancer screening is below targets in Ontario, Canada. Our objective was to identify and quantify the barriers and facilitators for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening for under and never screened (UNS) residents living in Ontario between 2011 and 2013.MethodsWe used a multi-phased mixed methods study design. Results from thematic analysis of focus group discussions with health care providers and UNS community members were used to develop an on-line, province-wide, cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence of barriers and facilitators for the provincial population. Adjusted prevalence odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for UNS compared to regularly screened participants using logistic regression.ResultsFour focus groups were held with health service providers and sixteen with UNS community members. Top barriers and facilitators themed around provider-patient communication, fear and embarrassment, history of physical or sexual abuse, social determinants of health (including low literacy, lack of awareness, and health insurance), symptoms appearing, and family and friends. 3075 participants completed the online survey. Compared to regularly screened participants, UNS had significantly higher odds of reporting: no regular health care provider; not feeling comfortable talking about screening; or the Doctor or Nurse Practitioner not suggesting screening. UNS also had significantly higher odds of reporting the facilitators: the test being less scary/painful or uncomfortable; friend/family insisting on getting screened; starting to have symptoms; or an easier test that could be done at home.ConclusionsInterventions addressing fear through individual, interpersonal and structural facilitators may increase cancer screening.     

Implementing an innovative consent form: the PREDICT experience

Background

This article describes the process used by the authors in developing an implementation intervention to assist VA substance use disorder clinics in adopting guideline-based practices for treating depression. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting implementation science frameworks and tools developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI).

Methods

The process involves two steps: 1) diagnosis of site-specific implementation needs, barriers, and facilitators (i.e., formative evaluation); and 2) the use of multi-disciplinary teams of local staff, implementation experts, and clinical experts to interpret diagnostic data and develop site-specific interventions. In the current project, data were collected via observations of program activities and key informant interviews with clinic staff and patients. The assessment investigated a wide range of macro- and micro-level determinants of organizational and provider behavior.

Conclusion

The implementation development process described here is presented as an optional method (or series of steps) to consider when designing a small scale, multi-site implementation study. The process grew from an evidence-based quality improvement strategy developed for – and proven efficacious in – primary care settings. The authors are currently studying the efficacy of the process across a spectrum of specialty care treatment settings.     

Evaluation and Treatment of Osteoporosis in Patients with a Fragility Hip Fracture

ObjectiveTo determine whether patients with fragility hip fractures underwent assessment and treatment of osteoporosis during initial hospitalization or recommendations for such intervention were made to the primary care provider (PCP) at the time of hospital dismissal.MethodsA review of medical records of patients admitted with a low-impact hip fracture to the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, was performed to determine whether recommendations were made to evaluate for or treat osteoporosis. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the orthopedic surgeons practicing at the hospital to help identify barriers to widespread diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in such patients.ResultsBetween January and December 2004, 174 patients with fragility hip fractures were admitted to the Royal University Hospital. The mean age of these patients was 82.5 ± 9.8 years. Evaluation for treatment of osteoporosis was recommended in only 9 patients (5%). We found no significant differences in the intervention rates between male and female patients, between patients with and those without a prior history of osteoporosis or fracture, between patients who were previously taking osteoporosis medications and those who were not, and between patients who were seen by a medical consultant and those who were not. Most orthopedic surgeons believed that they were primarily responsible for the surgical care of these patients, and because they did not see these patients in regular follow-up, the management of osteoporosis was considered the responsibility of the PCP.Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that only a small number of patients with fragility hip fractures receive appropriate evaluation or treatment for underlying osteoporosis either during initial hospitalization or at the time of dismissal from the hospital. In this study, most orthopedic surgeons believed that evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis were the responsibility of the PCP. Because these patients have an increased risk for future fractures, barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis need to be removed, and health-care professionals need to be educated about appropriate risk factor modification in these patients. (Endocr Pract. 2005;11:370-375)     

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non‐maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high‐quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery‐supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.     

A prospective controlled study: Minimally invasive stereotactic puncture therapy versus conventional craniotomy in the treatment of acute intracerebral hemorrhage

Background  

Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating form of stroke with the high mortality twofold to sixfold higher than that for ischemic stroke. But the treatment of haematomas within the basal ganglia continues to be a matter of debate among neurologists and neurosurgeons. The purpose of this study is to judge the clinical value of minimally invasive stereotactic puncture therapy (MISPT) on acute ICH.