Search

1 Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney;... I Implementation Science 2023, i B 18(2): b SP a sp Mitchell Sarkies and Hossai Gul contributed equally to this paper SP b sp Andrew Baillie, Lauren Christie, Caleb Ferguson, Julie Gawthorne, Helen Goldsmith, Nicolette Hodyl, Natasha Howard, Karen Hutchinson, Marlena Klaic, Joanna Moullin, Nicole Nathan, Sanne Peters, Nicole Rankin, Ben Smith, Serene Yoong. Only one study reported facilitators to the IMPLEMENTATION of CDS systems, none reported on barriers to the implementation of CDS systems and none reported any information on successful strategies to MAINTAIN implementation of CDS systems. B Methods b A sequence of three studies were conducted via a mixed method methodology and structured by the process model Implementation Mapping (IM) to guide the development of implementation strategies. B Conclusions b Process mapping successfully identifies site-specific variation in complex clinical processes and facilitates a shared understanding of the current systems and factors that affect implementation. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines based on absolute risk assessment is poor around the world, including Australia. Behavioural barriers amongst GPs and patients include capability (e.g. difficulty communicating/understanding risk) and motivation (e.g. attitudes towards guidelines/medication). This paper outlines the theory-based development of a website for GP guidelines, and piloting of a new risk calculator/decision aid.Methods: Stage 1 involved identifying evidence-based solutions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework, informed by previous research involving 400 GPs and 600 patients/consumers. Stage 2 co-developed website content with GPs. Stage 3 piloted a prototype website at a national GP conference. Stage 4 iteratively improved the website based on "think aloud" interviews with GPs and patients. Stage 5 was a feasibility study to evaluate potential efficacy (guidelines-based recommendations for each risk category), acceptability (intended use) and demand (actual use over 1 month) amongst GPs (n = 98).Results: Stage 1 identified GPs as the target for behaviour change; the need for a new risk calculator/decision aid linked to existing audit and feedback training; and online guidelines as a delivery format. Stage 2-4 iteratively improved content and format based on qualitative feedback from GP and patient user testing over three rounds of website development. Stage 5 suggested potential efficacy with improved identification of hypothetical high risk patients (from 26 to 76%) and recommended medication (from 57 to 86%) after viewing the website (n = 42), but prescribing to low risk patients remained similar (from 19 to 22%; n = 37). Most GPs (89%) indicated they would use the website in the next month, and 72% reported using it again after one month (n = 98). Open feedback identified implementation barriers including a need for integration with medical software, low health literacy resources and pre-consultation assessment.Conclusions: Following a theory-based development process and user co-design, the resulting intervention was acceptable to GPs with high intentions for use, improved identification of patient risk categories and more guidelines-based prescribing intentions for high risk but not low risk patients. The effectiveness of linking the intervention to clinical practice more closely to address implementation barriers will be evaluated in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Major trauma patients-such as patients who have experienced road injury, high-impact falls or violence-require complex, intense and rapid resuscitation from a multidisciplinary team of clinicians. These 'flash teams' must form quickly and function effectively, often having never met before. There is evidence that multidisciplinary teamwork training improves the performance of the trauma team in simulation. However, the translation of learnt resuscitation teamwork skills from simulation into clinical practice has had modest and variable effects. This paper outlines a method for developing an intervention designed to translate the teaching from a simulated training environment into clinical practice using the theoretical domains framework, behaviour change wheel and behaviour change techniques as the theoretical and empirical basis for the process.Methods: The data used to inform the intervention development process were collected during an implementation evaluation study of the trauma team training programme at the busiest level 1 trauma centre in Sydney, Australia. A detailed barrier and enabler assessment were conducted using qualitative and quantitative data. The theoretical domains framework was used to integrate the results. Implementation interventions were selected using the behaviour change wheel.Results: Twenty-three facilitators and 19 barriers were identified to influence the implementation of trauma team training in the clinical setting. The facilitators and barriers corresponded to all 14 domains of the theoretical domains framework. Seven intervention functions and four policy categories of the behavioural change wheel were selected to address the target behaviours, and a multimodal relaunch of the revised trauma team training programme was developed.Conclusions: This study offers a framework for deductively employing the theoretical domains framework, behaviour change wheel and behaviour change techniques to assess and develop intervention strategies to improve the functioning of trauma resuscitation teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Much has been written about the use of evidence in policy; however, there is still little known about whether and how research is engaged with and used in policy development or the impact of reported barriers and facilitators. This paper aims to (1) describe the characteristics of 131 policy documents, (2) describe the ways in which research was engaged with (e.g. was searched for, appraised or generated) and used (e.g. to clarify understanding, persuade others or inform a policy) in the development of these policy documents, and (3) identify the most commonly reported barriers and facilitators and describe their association with research engagement and use.Methods: Six health policy and program development agencies based in Sydney, Australia, contributed four recently finalised policy documents for consideration over six measurement periods. Structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with the policymakers most heavily involved in developing each of the 131 policy documents. Interviews covered whether and how research was engaged with and used in the development of the policy product and any barriers or facilitators related to this. Interviews were scored using the empirically validated SAGE tool and thematically analysed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all key variables and comparisons made between agencies. Multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the impact of specific barriers and facilitators on research engagement and use.Results: Our data shows large variations between policy agencies in the types of policy documents produced and the characteristics of these documents. Nevertheless, research engagement and use was generally moderate across agencies. A number of barriers and facilitators to research use were identified. No barriers were significantly associated with any aspects of research engagement or use. Access to consultants and relationships with researchers were both associated with increased research engagement but not use. Thus, access to consultants and relationships with researchers may increase the extent and quality of the evidence considered in policy development.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that those wishing to develop interventions and programs designed to improve the use of evidence in policy agencies might usefully target increasing access to consultants and relationships with researchers in order to increase the extent and quality of the research considered, but that a greater consideration of context might be required to develop strategies to increase evidence use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]