Search

BackgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of global maternal deaths, accounting for 30-50% of maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. Most PPH-related deaths are preventable with timely detection and initiation of care, which may be facilitated by using a clinical care bundle. We explore influences on current PPH detection and management and on the future implementation of a new PPH bundle (E-MOTIVE) in low-resource, high-burden settings.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted with 45 healthcare providers across nine hospitals in Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, to identify barriers and enablers to current PPH detection and management and future implementation of a new PPH care bundle. Data were analysed using thematic and framework analysis. The Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify potential interventions to address identified barriers and enablers.ResultsInfluences on current PPH detection and management fell under 12 domains: Environmental Context and Resources (drug and staff shortages), Skills (limited in-service training), Knowledge (variable understanding of the recommended practice), Behaviour Regulation (limited quality improvement culture), Beliefs about Consequences (drawbacks from inaccurate detection), Emotion (stress from the unpredictability of PPH), Social Influence (teamwork), Memory, Attention and Decision-making (limited guideline use), Social/Professional Role and Identity (role clarity), Beliefs about Capabilities (confidence in managing PPH), Reinforcement (disciplinary procedures) and Goals (PPH as a priority). Influences on bundle uptake included: Beliefs about Consequences (perceived benefits of new blood loss measurement tool), Environmental Context and Resources (high cost of drugs and new tools), Memory, Attention and Decision-making (concerns about whether bundle fits current practice), Knowledge (not understanding 'bundled' approach), Social Influenc

Background: The multi-disciplinarity of long-term care for people with intellectual disabilities makes organisations seek stability and predictability, complicating implementing innovations. Interventions to implement a method for reducing restrictive measures were analysed through the lens of Normalisation Process Theory to understand the social mechanisms at play. Methods: Process notes, collected during a trial in which a method to reduce restrictive measures was implemented, were analysed guided by implementation interventions defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. These interventions were mapped to social mechanisms of Normalisation Process Theory. Results: Implementation interventions were widely used in which clients’ perspectives were expressed (client-related-interventions), and consensus processes were held with care professionals. These interventions initiated NPT’s social mechanisms’ Coherence, Cognitive Participation and Collective Action. Conclusions: The emphasis on consensus and clients’ perspectives when methodically reducing restrictive measures reflects some unique implementation challenges in long-term intellectual disability care.