NorthStar, a support tool for the design and evaluation of quality improvement interventions in healthcare

Background: The Research-Based Education and Quality Improvement (ReBEQI) European partnership aims to establish a framework and provide practical tools for the selection, implementation, and evaluation of quality improvement (QI) interventions. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the software tool NorthStar, a major product of the ReBEQI project. Methods: We focused the content of NorthStar on the design and evaluation of QI interventions. A lead individual from the ReBEQI group drafted each section, and at least two other group members reviewed it. The content is based on published literature, as well as material developed by the ReBEQI group. We developed the software in both a Microsoft Windows HTML help system version and a web-based version. In a preliminary evaluation, we surveyed 33 potential users about the acceptability and perceived utility of NorthStar. Results: NorthStar consists of 18 sections covering the design and evaluation of QI interventions. The major focus of the intervention design sections is on how to identify determinants of practice (factors affecting practice patterns), while the major focus of the intervention evaluation sections is on how to design a cluster randomised trial. The two versions of the software can be transferred by email or CD, and are available for download from the internet. The software offers easy navigation and various functions to access the content. Potential users (55% response rate) reported above-moderate levels of confidence in carrying out QI research related tasks if using NorthStar, particularly when developing a protocol for a cluster randomised trial Conclusion: NorthStar is an integrated, accessible, practical, and acceptable tool to assist developers and evaluators of QI interventions

Promoting effective reproductive health care

This thesis is concerned with approaches used by the Scottish Programme for Clinical Effectiveness in Reproductive Health (SPCERH) to improve quality of care. The work embraces two main themes: understanding factors that influence clinical practice; and evaluating strategies to improve practiceMany factors influence practice, such as the nature of targeted behaviours, professionals and organisations (Chapter 1). An observational study, of practice related to 42 audit recommendations in 16 gynaecology units, found that attributes of recommendations independently modified the effects of a national audit and feedback project (Chapter 2). Four evaluations of dissemination and implementation strategies were conducted. The first, a telephone survey of 201 obstetricians and midwives, highlighted gaps in awareness of national recommendations on the prevention of maternal mortality (Chapter 3). The second, a before-and-after postal survey of 92 obstetricians, found mixed changes in self-reported practice following the dissemination of four national obstetric guidelines (Chapter 4). The third, an interrupted time series analysis, evaluated trends in the care of 1263 women in four maternity units related to of these guidelines, on mild, non-proteinuric hypertension in pregnancy (Chapter 5). No improvements in the appropriateness of initial investigations and subsequent clinical management were found. The fourth study, a cluster randomised trial involving all 26 gynaecology units in Scotland, evaluated a strategy to promote a guideline on induced abortion care. The strategy, delivered under the auspices of SPCERH, comprised audit and feedback, educational meetings, dissemination of a structured case record, and promotion of patient information. The strategy was refined in the light of barriers identified following a pre-intervention case record review, interviews with gynaecologists and a theoretically-derived survey of 151 clinical staff (Chapter 6). Post-intervention compliance with guideline recommendations was assessed by a review of 1474 case records and a survey of 1028 patients. No intervention effect was observed, possibly related to high preintervention compliance with selected recommendations and the appropriateness of the implementation strategy (Chapter 7).The choices of study design were determined by SPCERHs' objectives, available time and resources. More rigorous designs were judged to be less susceptible to bias (Chapter 8). All studies were of moderate to high generalisability to secondary care professionals targeted by SPCERH activities. Recommendations are made for future evaluations of implementation activities (Chapter 9)

Improving professional practice in the disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia : a modeling experiment to evaluate a theory-based intervention

The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com.Peer reviewedPostprin

The development of a theory-based intervention to promote appropriate disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia

Background: The development and description of interventions to change professional practice are often limited by the lack of an explicit theoretical and empirical basis. We set out to develop an intervention to promote appropriate disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia based on theoretical and empirical work. Methods: We identified three key disclosure behaviours: finding out what the patient already knows or suspects about their diagnosis; using the actual words 'dementia' or 'Alzheimer's disease' when talking to the patient; and exploring what the diagnosis means to the patient. We conducted a questionnaire survey of older peoples' mental health teams (MHTs) based upon theoretical constructs from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and used the findings to identify factors that predicted mental health professionals' intentions to perform each behaviour. We selected behaviour change techniques likely to alter these factors. Results: The change techniques selected were: persuasive communication to target subjective norm; behavioural modelling and graded tasks to target self-efficacy; persuasive communication to target attitude towards the use of explicit terminology when talking to the patient; and behavioural modelling by MHTs to target perceived behavioural control for finding out what the patient already knows or suspects and exploring what the diagnosis means to the patient. We operationalised these behaviour change techniques using an interactive 'pen and paper' intervention designed to increase intentions to perform the three target behaviours. Conclusion : It is feasible to develop an intervention to change professional behaviour based upon theoretical models, empirical data and evidence based behaviour change techniques. The next step is to evaluate the effect of such an intervention on behavioural intention. We argue that this approach to development and reporting of interventions will contribute to the science of implementation by providing replicable interventions that illuminate the principles and processes underlying change.This project is funded by UK Medical Research Council, Grant reference number G0300999. Jeremy Grimshaw holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. Jill Francis is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate. The views expressed in this study are those of the authors

The development and application of audit criteria for assessing knowledge exchange plans in health research grant applications.

Background: Research funders expect evidence of end user engagement and impact plans in research proposals. Drawing upon existing frameworks, we developed audit criteria to help researchers and their institutions assess the knowledge exchange plans of health research proposals. Findings: Criteria clustered around five themes: problem definition; involvement of research users; public and patient engagement; dissemination and implementation; and planning, management and evaluation of knowledge exchange. We applied these to a sample of grant applications from one research institution in the United Kingdom to demonstrate feasibility. Conclusion: Our criteria may be useful as a tool for researcher self-assessment and for research institutions to assess the quality of knowledge exchange plans and identify areas for systematic improvement

Implementation science: a reappraisal of our journal mission and scope.

The implementation of research findings into healthcare practice has become increasingly recognised as a major priority for researchers, service providers, research funders and policymakers over the past decade. Nine years after its establishment, Implementation Science, an international online open access journal, currently publishes over 150 articles each year. This is fewer than 30% of those submitted for publication. The majority of manuscript rejections occur at the point of initial editorial screening, frequently because we judge them to fall outside of journal scope. There are a number of common reasons as to why manuscripts are rejected on grounds of scope. Furthermore, as the field of implementation research has evolved and our journal submissions have risen, we have, out of necessity, had to become more selective in what we publish. We have also expanded our scope, particularly around patient-mediated and population health interventions, and will monitor the impact of such changes. We hope this editorial on our evolving priorities and common reasons for rejection without peer review will help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to Implementation Science

Understanding the organisational influences on the quality of and access to primary care in English prisons: a qualitative interview study

Background Primary care for routine healthcare conditions is delivered to thousands of people in the English prison estate every day but the prison environment presents unique challenges to the provision of high-quality health care. Little research has focused on the organisational factors that affect quality of and access to prison health care. Aim To understand key influences on the quality of primary care in prisons. Design and setting This was a qualitative interview study across the North of England from 2019 to 2021. Method Interviews were undertaken with 43 participants: 21 prison leavers and 22 prison healthcare professionals. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken. Results The overarching organisational issue influencing quality and access was that of chronic understaffing coupled with a workforce in flux and dependence on locum staff. This applied across different prisons, roles, and grades of staff, and was vocally discussed by both patient and staff participants. Intricately related to understaffing (and fuelled by it) was the propensity for a reactive and sometimes crisis-led service to develop that was characterised by continual firefighting. A persistent problem exacerbated by the above issues was unreliable communication about healthcare matters within some prisons, creating frustration. Positive commentary focused on the characteristics and actions of individual healthcare professionals. Conclusion This study highlights understaffing and its consequences as the most significant threat to the quality of and access to prison primary care. Strategies to address health care affecting prison populations urgently need to consider staffing. This issue should receive high-profile and mainstream attention to address health inequalities

Trends in provision of photodynamic therapy and clinician attitudes: a tracker survey of a new health technology

BACKGROUND: There has been debate about the cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT), a treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. We have been monitoring trends for the provision of PDT in the UK National Health Service. The fourth annual 'tracker' survey took place as definitive National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance was issued. We assessed trends in PDT provision up to the point of release of the NICE guidance and identified likely sources of pressure on ophthalmologists to provide PDT. METHODS: National postal questionnaire survey of clinicians with potential responsibility for PDT provision. The survey explored reported local provision, beliefs about the effectiveness of PDT and what sources of opinion might influence attitudes towards providing PDT. RESULTS: The response rate was 73% (111/150). Almost half of the surveyed ophthalmology units routinely provided PDT, as part of a trend of steady growth in provision. The proportion of respondents who believed that further proof of effectiveness was required has also declined despite the absence of any new substantial evidence. Attitudes towards providing PDT were positive, on average, and were more strongly associated with perceived social pressure from local colleagues than from other sources. Local colleagues were seen as being most approving of PDT. CONCLUSION: Those responsible for implementing the NICE guidance need to address ophthalmologists' beliefs about the evidence of effectiveness for PDT and draw upon supportive local individuals or networks to enhance the credibility of the guidance

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: an observational study

Background: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected ‘big data’ in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based ‘high impact’ quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ‘risky’ prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. Results: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. Conclusions: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour

Understanding variations in the use of tranexamic acid in surgery: a qualitative interview study

Despite robust supporting evidence, around a third of eligible surgical patients do not receive tranexamic acid (TXA). Effective strategies based on an understanding of clinical behaviour are needed to increase use and improve patient outcomes. We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians involved in perioperative care to explore perceived influences on TXA use. We identified key influences on practice using the theoretical domains framework. We matched these to behaviour change techniques and evidence-informed implementation intervention components. Across 22 interviews, we identified eight key influences within three overarching themes of capability, opportunity and motivation. Capability influences included the clinical context and variable familiarity with TXA. Opportunity concerned the availability of both TXA and checklists to support decision-making and whether TXA use was consistent with professional expectations and perceived responsibilities. Motivation concerned confidence in administering TXA, perceived benefits and risks and training received around potential risk factors. These influences varied across participants and specialities. Our resulting proposed implementation strategy included training, clinical prompts, comparative performance feedback and opinion leadership supported by specialty-specific guidance. Any strategy to increase TXA use that improves knowledge and skills without addressing wider influences on clinical behaviour is only likely to meet with limited success