Search

Background: The Stop Cancer PAIN Trial was a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial which compared effectiveness of screening and guidelines with or without implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending six Australian outpatient comprehensive cancer centres (n = 688). A system for pain screening was introduced before observation of a 'control' phase. Implementation strategies introduced in the 'intervention' phase included: (1) audit of adherence to guideline recommendations, with feedback to clinical teams; (2) health professional education via an email-administered 'spaced education' module; and (3) a patient education booklet and self-management resource. Selection of strategies was informed by the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model (Michie et al., 2011) and evidence for each strategy's stand-alone effectiveness. A consultant physician at each centre supported the intervention as a 'clinical champion'. However, fidelity to the intervention was limited, and the Trial did not demonstrate effectiveness. This paper reports a sub-study of the Trial which aimed to identify factors inhibiting or enabling fidelity to inform future guideline implementation initiatives., Methods: The qualitative sub-study enabled in-depth exploration of factors from the perspectives of personnel at each centre. Clinical champions, clinicians and clinic receptionists were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Analysis used a framework method and a largely deductive approach based on the COM-B Model., Results: Twenty-four people participated, including 15 physicians, 8 nurses and 1 clinic receptionist. Coding against the COM-B Model identified 'capability' to be the most influential component, with 'opportunity' and 'motivation' playing largely subsidiary roles. Findings suggest that fidelity could have been improved by: considering the readiness for change of each clinical setting; better articulating the intervention's value proposition; defining clinician roles and responsibilities, addressing perceptions that pain care falls beyond oncology clinicians' scopes of practice; integrating the intervention within existing systems and processes; promoting patient-clinician partnerships; investing in clinical champions among senior nursing and junior medical personnel, supported by medical leaders; and planning for slow incremental change rather than rapid uptake., Conclusions: Future guideline implementation interventions may require a 'meta-implementation' approach based on complex systems theory to successfully integrate multiple strategies., Trial Registration: Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number: ACTRN 12615000064505; data: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspxid=367236&isReview=true ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Electronic medical record (EMR) systems provide timely access to clinical information and have been shown to improve medication safety. However, EMRs can also create opportunities for error, including system-related errors or errors that were unlikely or not possible with the use of paper medication charts. This study aimed to determine the detection and mitigation strategies adopted by a health district in Australia to target system-related errors and to explore stakeholder views on strategies needed to curb future system-related errors from emerging., Methods: A qualitative descriptive study design was used comprising semi-structured interviews. Data were collected from three hospitals within a health district in Sydney, Australia, between September 2020 and May 2021. Interviews were conducted with EMR users and other key stakeholders (e.g. clinical informatics team members). Participants were asked to reflect on how system-related errors changed over time, and to describe approaches taken by their organisation to detect and mitigate these errors. Thematic analysis was conducted iteratively using a general inductive approach, where codes were assigned as themes emerged from the data., Results: Interviews were conducted with 25 stakeholders. Participants reported that most system-related errors were detected by front-line clinicians. Following error detection, clinicians either reported system-related errors directly to the clinical informatics team or submitted reports to the incident information management system. System-related errors were also reported to be detected via reports run within the EMR, or during organisational processes such as incident investigations or system enhancement projects. EMR redesign was the main approach described by participants for mitigating system-related errors, however other strategies, like regular user education and minimising the use of hybrid systems, were also reported., Conclusions: Initial detection of system-related errors relies heavily on front-line clinicians, however other organisational strategies that are proactive and layered can improve the systemic detection, investigation, and management of errors. Together with EMR design changes, complementary error mitigation strategies, including targeted staff education, can support safe EMR use and development., (© 2024. The Author(s).)