Search

Rationale, aims and objectives Educational workshops are a commonly used quality improvement intervention. Often delivered by credible local health professionals who do not necessarily have skills in pedagogy, it can be challenging to achieve high intervention fidelity. This paper summarizes the fidelity assessment of a workshop designed to increase the uptake of a primary care alcohol screening recommendation. Method Delivered in a single health region, the workshop comprised separate sessions delivered by three local health professionals, plus two role plays delivered by a commercial company. Sessions were tailored to local barriers. Meetings were held with presenters and an outline of the barriers was provided. Two researchers attended the workshop, rating the number of specified barriers targeted by presenters and their quality of delivery. Participant responsiveness was measured through attendees' feedback and intervention dose was calculated as the proportion of health professionals who attended and proportion of general practices represented. Results Exposure was low, with 62 of 545 health professionals from 30 of a possible 80 practices attending. Sixty-five per cent of the specified barriers were targeted. There was variability in quality of delivery and participant responsiveness; challenges included potential mixed messages, overreliance on didactic methods and certain barriers appearing easier to target than others. Conclusions The framework provided a rounded assessment of intervention fidelity: intervention coverage was low, adherence was moderate and there was variability in the quality of delivery across presenters. Future studies testing the effectiveness of interventions delivered by local experts with and without brief training in pedagogy/behaviour change would be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives There is an international imperative to implement research into clinical practice to improve health care. Understanding the dynamics of change requires knowledge from theoretical and empirical studies. This paper presents a novel approach to testing a new meta theoretical framework: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Method The utility of the Framework was evaluated using a post hoc, deductive analysis of 11 narrative accounts of innovation in health care services and practice from England, collected in 2010. A matrix, comprising the five domains and 39 constructs of the Framework was developed to examine the coherence of the terminology, to compare results across contexts and to identify new theoretical developments. Results The Framework captured the complexity of implementation across 11 diverse examples, offering theoretically informed, comprehensive coverage. The Framework drew attention to relevant points in individual cases together with patterns across cases; for example, all were internally developed innovations that brought direct or indirect patient advantage. In 10 cases, the change was led by clinicians. Most initiatives had been maintained for several years and there was evidence of spread in six examples. Areas for further development within the Framework include sustainability and patient/public engagement in implementation. Conclusion Our analysis suggests that this conceptual framework has the potential to offer useful insights, whether as part of a situational analysis or by developing context-specific propositions for hypothesis testing. Such studies are vital now that innovation is being promoted as core business for health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Routine collection of outcome measures is advocated to improve quality of care. However, there has been scant investigation of how measurement tools are used in clinical practice and what impact they may have. This paper compares two neuro-rehabilitation teams, one which routinely used standardized measurement tools and the other which did not. We explore differences in communication and clinical decision making within multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to illuminate the influence measurement tools could have on clinical practice. Method Non-participant observation of MDT meetings in two neurological rehabilitation units in England. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with at least one member of each profession in each team. Grounded theory techniques were used to analyse the data. Results Differences in team members' communication within MDT meetings underscored differences in the process of clinical decision making within the teams. Using measurement tools provided a shared understanding to facilitate communication by focusing discussion on the patient's abilities rather than individual professionals' contributions. This led to differences in the way team members identified the nature and cause of patients' problems, monitored their progress and planned for discharge. They provided a 'neutral ground' to reach a shared perspective between professionals, thereby avoiding conflict. Externally, use of the tools enabled objective discussion with patients and their families about their progress and was a vehicle to facilitate giving bad news. Conclusion Using standardized measurement tools can promote a patient-focused approach to care, thus facilitating treatment planning and clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]