Search

BACKGROUND Literature shows that large proportions of people with a spinal cord injury (SCI) continue to experience challenges and limitations in weight management (WM) efforts in the health care setting. Despite the need, evidence-based research on effective and practical WM practices for persons with SCI is inconsistent and not widely used by health care providers (HCPs). OBJECTIVE The objectives were twofold: (1) to explore HCP perspectives of the extent of the problem of overweight/obesity in individuals with SCI and (2) HCPs awareness of and beliefs about availability of literature or evidence-based guidelines that discuss WM in SCI. DESIGN Qualitative study using semistructured interviews with HCPs and thematic analysis to identify themes. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING SCI HCPs (n = 25) from Veterans Health Administration and Midwest Regional SCI Care System. INTERVENTION Not applicable. RESULTS SCI HCPs (88%) emphasized the large scope of the problem of overweight and obesity in persons with SCI. HCPs noted the multiple associated negative consequences, specifically 84% highlighted the impact on chronic conditions (cardiometabolic, respiratory) and 48% discussed the impact on secondary/associated conditions (skin, bowel, bladder, musculoskeletal). HCPs noted other impacts of excess weight as greater disability in later life (28%), challenges with mobility and function (60%), self-care (24%), and equipment safety (28%). This sample of HCPs (76%) indicated being unaware of published or available information about WM efforts that work in SCI populations. CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that HCPs believe that overweight and obesity is a significant problem in persons with SCI but that this sample of HCPs are not aware of published work and easily accessible SCI-specific WM evidence-based guidance. This suggests the need for more education and proactive efforts to improve awareness of appropriate information within interprofessional HCPs.

Background Patient-centred care is now ubiquitous in health services research, and healthcare systems are moving ahead with patient-centred care implementation. Yet, little is known about how healthcare employees, charged with implementing patient-centred care, conceptualize what they are implementing. Objective To examine how hospital employees conceptualize patient-centred care. Research design We conducted qualitative interviews about patient-centred care during site four visits, from January to April 2013. Subjects We interviewed 107 employees, including leadership, middle managers, front line providers and staff at four US Veteran Health Administration (VHA) medical centres leading VHA's patient-centred care transformation. Measures Data were analysed using grounded thematic analysis. Findings were then mapped to established patient-centred care constructs identified in the literature: taking a biopsychosocial perspective; viewing the patient-as-person; sharing power and responsibility; establishing a therapeutic alliance; and viewing the doctor-as-person. Results We identified three distinct conceptualizations: (i) those that were well aligned with established patient-centred care constructs surrounding the clinical encounter; (ii) others that extended conceptualizations of patient-centred care into the organizational culture, encompassing the entire patient-experience; and (iii) still others that were poorly aligned with patient-centred care constructs, reflecting more traditional patient care practices. Conclusions Patient-centred care ideals have permeated into healthcare systems. Additionally, patient-centred care has been expanded to encompass a cultural shift in care delivery, beginning with patients' experiences entering a facility. However, some healthcare employees, namely leadership, see patient-centred care so broadly, it encompasses on-going hospital initiatives, while others consider patient-centred care as inherent to specific positions. These latter conceptualizations risk undermining patient-centred care implementation by limiting transformational initiatives to specific providers or simply repackaging existing programmes.

Background The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework has been used by implementation researchers to assess factors impacting implementation and to use that information to identify optimal interventions and implementation strategies. In this paper, two studies are presented demonstrating the utility of PARIHS as a tool for retrospective and prospective evaluation of implementation in the health care setting. Study Design Descriptive case study. Methods A qualitative consensus process was used to evaluate provider perceptions of PARIHS constructs of evidence, context, and facilitation and their subelements which were scored on a continuum of low to high. Results The first example demonstrates retrospective use of PARIHS which provided insight into the factors contributing to variations in implementation across sites in an ongoing program. Evidence was strong (high), whereas context noted some challenges in culture and measurement (mixed), and the presence of dedicated program facilitators was positive but dual roles limited their ability to fully support implementation (mixed). The second example demonstrates prospective use of PARIHS for evaluation which gathered information about intervention sites for the purposes of selecting implementation strategies responsive to site needs. Evidence supporting the intervention was limited (low), context noted that limited awareness of the intervention was a challenge (low), and that a strong internal facilitator supported implementation (high). Linking Evidence to Action The descriptive case study presented here underscores the value of a theory-guided approach to implementation and highlights that PARIHS can help implementers understand factors impacting implementation, identify areas for future intervention, and inform selection of strategies to support or enhance implementation efforts.

Objective To gain an in-depth understanding of patient barriers to accessing telephone care, subsequent responses to telephone access issues and recommendations for system improvement within a large integrated health-care system. Study Design Cross-sectional qualitative focus group study. Methods One focus group was conducted at each of 17 Veterans Affairs facilities with a total of 123 Veteran users of VA health care. All facilities followed a focus group discussion guide, and purposively sampled patients receiving care at their VA facility in primary and/or specialty care. Focus groups' recordings were sent to the authors' independent evaluation centre, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis methodology. Results Participants described many issues with the phone system that resulted in delays to care needs being addressed, including difficulty getting someone to answer the phone, out-dated phone directories, frequent disconnections and incorrect transfers. Participants most frequently responded to access issues by doing nothing or waiting to contact at a later time, or seeking unscheduled in-person care in the emergency department or primary care clinic. Participants offered recommendations for improving telephone care, including access to direct extensions, and upgrades to the telephone system. Conclusions Telephone access issues could result in increased patient harm and/or increased wait times for in-person primary care or emergency services. Periodic evaluation of telephone systems is necessary to ensure telephone systems adequately meet patient needs while using resources efficiently to optimize the delivery of high quality, safe health care.

Aim To examine associations between perceptions of evidence (research evidence, clinical expertise, patient preferences) and outcomes of a nationwide programme to implement H1N1 influenza prevention guidelines. Background Healthcare workers do not consistently adhere to recommended infection control practices and this may be associated with their perceptions of evidence sources. Design Cross-sectional mailed survey. Method A survey of healthcare workers was administered in August 2010 after implementation of H1N1 prevention guidelines. Outcomes of interest were ratings of adherence to H1N1 prevention guidelines. Findings Respondents with complete data (N = 283) were included in analyses. Facility-level adherence to guidelines was associated with opinions of clinical experts. Healthcare workers who rated clinical expertise as aligning with recommendations also rated their facilities as being more adherent to guidelines. Perceptions of research evidence and patient preferences were not associated with facility adherence. Personal adherence was not associated with perceptions of evidence, except among those healthcare workers who rated both clinical experts and patients as unsupportive of guidelines; these practitioners were less likely to adhere to recommended personal hygiene practices. Conclusion Efforts to implement guidelines might be most effective when capitalizing on the influence of clinical experts. To better explain variability in guideline adherence, inclusion of a broader array of variables is recommended for future studies.