Search

BackgroundClinical pathways (CPs) can improve patient outcomes but can be complex to implement. Technologies, such as clinical decision support (CDS) tools, can facilitate their use, but require end-user testing in clinical settings. ObjectiveThis study applied the Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate the individual, organizational, and technological contexts impacting application of a portal to facilitate a CP for anxiety and depression (the ADAPT Portal) in a metropolitan cancer service. The ADAPT Portal triggers patient screening on patient reported outcomes, alerts staff to high scores, recommends evidence-based management, and triggers review and rescreening at set intervals. MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data on portal activity, data accuracy, and health service staff perspectives were collected. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data. ResultsOverall, 15 (100% of those invited) health service staff agreed to be interviewed. During the pilot, 73 users (36 health service staff members and 37 patients) were registered on the ADAPT Portal. Of the 37 patients registered, 16 (43%) completed screening at least once, with seven screening positive and triaged appropriately. In total, 34 support requests were lodged, resulting in 17 portal enhancements (technical issues). Health service staff considered the ADAPT Portal easy to use and useful; however, some deemed it unnecessary or burdensome (individual issues), particularly in a busy cancer service (organizational issues). ConclusionsUser testing of a CDS to facilitate screening and assessment of anxiety and depression in cancer patients highlighted some technological issues in implementing the ADAPT CDS, resulting in 17 enhancements. Our results highlight the importance of obtaining health service staff feedback when piloting specialized CDS tools and addressing contextual factors when implementing them.

Background: Implementation strategies are crucial to facilitate implementation success. To prepare and support implementation of a clinical pathway for screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP), six broad categories of implementation strategies; (1) Awareness campaigns, (2) Champions, (3) Education, (4) Academic Detailing and Support, (5) Reporting, (6) Technological Support, were developed. The aim of this paper is to describe the fidelity and acceptability of six categories of implementation strategies and any subsequent changes/adaptations made to those strategies. Methods: The ADAPT CP was implemented in twelve cancer services in NSW, Australia, as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial of core versus enhanced implementation strategies. Fidelity to and any subsequent changes to the delivery of the planned six categories of implementation strategies were captured using the ADAPT contact log, which recorded the contacts made between the ADAPT research team and services, engagement meetings and monthly meetings. To explore acceptability and awareness/engagement with the implementation strategies, interviews with a purposively selected staff sample across both study arms were held prior to implementation (T0), six months into implementation (T1) and at the end of the 12-month implementation period (T2). Interviews were thematically analysed across the six categories of strategies. Results: Delivery of all six categories of implementation strategies as planned was moderated by service context and resources and staff engagement. As such, for some implementation strategies, subsequent changes or adaptations to the content, mode of delivery, frequency and duration such as abbreviated training sessions, were made to optimise fidelity to and engagement with the strategies. Most strategies were perceived to be acceptable by service staff. Use of strategies prior to implementation of the ADAPT CP such as the engagement meetings and training sessions, positively impacted on ownership and preparedness to implement the ADAPT CP. Furthermore, ongoing support such as provision of additional training or monthly meetings facilitated increased awareness and engagement with the ADAPT program. Conclusion: Flexibility in delivering implementation strategies, and ensuring staff engagement with, and acceptability of those strategies, can support implementation of interventions within healthcare settings. Trial registration: The ADAPT CRCT was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372486&isReview=true [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical pathways (CPs) are intended to standardise and improve care but do not always produce positive outcomes, possibly because they were not adapted to suit the specific context in which they were enacted. This qualitative study aimed to explore staff perspectives of implementation of a CP for routine screening, assessment, referral and management of anxiety and depression (the ADAPT CP) for patients with cancer, focussing on perceived feasibility of the CP and negotiated adaptations made during the implementation phase.Methods: The ADAPT CP was implemented in 12 urban and regional oncology services in Australia. Services were randomised to receive core versus enhanced implementation strategies. Core sites received support until implementation commencement and could access progress reports. Enhanced sites received proactive, ongoing support during the 12-month implementation. Purposively selected staff were interviewed prior to implementation (n = 88) and 6 months later, half-way through the implementation period (n = 89). Monthly meetings with lead multi-disciplinary teams at the eight enhanced sites were recorded. Data were thematically analysed.Results: Six overarching themes were identified: ADAPT is of high value; timing for introducing the CP and screening is difficult; online screening is challenging; a burden too much; no-one to refer patients to; and micro-logistics are key. While early screening was deemed desirable, diverse barriers meant this was complex, with adaptations made to time and screening location. Online screening prompted by email, seen as time-saving and efficient, also proved unsuccessful in some services, with adaptations made to in-clinic or phone screening, or repeated email reminders. Staff negative attitudes to ADAPT, time constraints, and perceived poor fit of ADAPT to work roles and flows, all impacted implementation, with key tasks often devolving to a few key individuals. Nevertheless, services remained committed to the ADAPT CP, and worked hard to create, review and adapt strategies to address challenges to optimise success.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the interactive nature of health service change, with staff actively engaging with, forming views on, and problem-solving adaptations of the ADAPT CP to overcome barriers. Obtaining staff feedback is critical to ensure health service change is sustainable, meaningful and achieves its promise of improving patient outcomes.Trial Registration: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anxiety and depression screening and management in cancer settings occurs inconsistently in Australia. We developed a clinical pathway (ADAPT CP) to promote standardized assessment and response to affected patients and enhance uptake of psychosocial interventions. Health professional education is a common strategy utilised to support implementation of practice change interventions. We developed an interactive on-line education program to support staff communication and confidence with anxiety/depression screening and referral prior to the ADAPT CP being implemented in 12 oncology services participating in the ADAPT CP cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT). The aim of this research was to assess acceptability and uptake of the education program. Patient Involvement: Although the wider ADAPT Program included patient consumers on the Steering Committee, in the context of this research consumer engagement included health professionals working in oncology. These consumers contributed to resource development.Methods: Development was informed by oncology and communication literature. The five online modules were pilot tested with 12 oncology nurses who participated in standardised medical simulations. Acceptability and uptake were assessed across the 12 Oncology services participating in the ADAPT CRCT.Results: During pilot testing the online training was reported to be acceptable and overall communication and confidence improved for all participants post training. However, during the ADAPT CRCT uptake was low (7%; n = 20). Although those who accessed the training reported it to be valuable, competing demands and the online format reportedly limited HPs' capacity and willingness to undertake training.Conclusions: This interactive on-line training provides strategies and communication skills for front-line staff to guide important conversations about psychosocial screening and referral. Building workforce skills, knowledge and confidence is crucial for the successful implementation of practice change interventions. However, despite being acceptable during pilot testing, low uptake in real world settings highlights that organisational support and incentivisation for frontline staff to undertake training are critical for wider engagement. A multimodal approach to delivery of training to cater for staff preferences for face to face and/or online training may maximise uptake and increase effectiveness of training interventions.Trial Registration: Pilot study ACTRN12616001490460 (27/10/2016). ADAPT RCT ACTRN12617000411347(22/03/2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve health outcomes, but to be sustainable, must be deemed acceptable and appropriate by staff. A CP for screening and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) was implemented in 12 Australian oncology services for 12 months, within a cluster randomised controlled trial of core versus enhanced implementation strategies. This paper compares staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP across study arms.Methods: Multi-disciplinary lead teams at each service tailored, planned, championed and implemented the CP. Staff at participating services, purposively selected for diversity, completed a survey and participated in an interview prior to implementation (T0), and at midpoint (6 months: T1) and end (12 months: T2) of implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.Results: Seven metropolitan and 5 regional services participated. Questionnaires were completed by 106, 58 and 57 staff at T0, T1 and T2 respectively. Eighty-eight staff consented to be interviewed at T0, with 89 and 76 at T1 and T2 (response rates 70%, 66% and 57%, respectively). Acceptability/appropriateness, on the quantitative measure, was high at T0 (mean of 31/35) and remained at that level throughout the study, with no differences between staff from core versus enhanced services. Perceived burden was relatively low (mean of 11/20) with no change over time. Lowest scores and greatest variability pertained to perceived impact on workload, time and cost. Four major themes were identified: 1) Mental health is an important issue which ADAPT addresses; 2) ADAPT helps staff deliver best care, and reduces staff stress; 3) ADAPT is fit for purpose, for both cancer care services and patients; 4) ADAPT: a catalyst for change. Opposing viewpoints are outlined.Conclusions: This study demonstrated high staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP with regards to its focus, evidence-base, utility to staff and patients, and ability to create change. However, concerns remained regarding burden on staff and time commitment. Strategies from a policy and managerial level will likely be required to overcome the latter issues.Trial Registration: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/ . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective translation of evidence-based research into clinical practice requires assessment of the many factors that can impact implementation success. Research methods that draw on recognised implementation frameworks, such as the Promoting Action Research in Health Services (PARiHS) framework, and that test feasibility to gain information prior to full-scale roll-out, can support a more structured approach to implementation. Objective: This paper presents qualitative findings from a feasibility study in one cancer service of an online portal to operationalise a clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients. The aim of this study was to explore staff perspectives on the feasibility and acceptance of a range of strategies to support implementation in order to inform the full-scale roll-out. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen hospital staff holding a range of clinical, administrative and managerial roles, and with differing levels of exposure to the pathway. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, and themes were subsequently organised within the constructs of the PARiHS framework. Results: Barriers and facilitators that affected the feasibility of the online portal and implementation strategies were organised across eight key themes: staff perceptions, culture, external influences, attitudes to psychosocial care, intervention fit, familiarity, burden and engagement. These themes mapped to the PARiHS framework's three domains of evidence, context and facilitation. Conclusions: Implementation success may be threatened by a range of factors related to the real-world context, perceptions of the intervention (evidence) and the process by which it is introduced (facilitation). Feasibility testing of implementation strategies can provide unique insights into issues likely to influence full-scale implementation, allowing for early tailoring and more effective facilitation which may save time, money and effort in the long-term. Use of a determinant implementation framework can assist researchers to synthesise and effectively respond to barriers as they arise. While the current feasibility study related to a specific implementation, strategies such as regular engagement with local stakeholders, and discussion of barriers arising in real-time during early testing is likely to be of benefit to all researchers and clinicians seeking to maximise the likelihood of long-term implementation success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]