"Struggling with practices" - a qualitative study of factors influencing the implementation of clinical quality registries for cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark.
Cardiac rehabilitation
Clinical audit
Clinical quality registry
Data entry
Implementation
Quality improvement
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Feb 2019
06 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
01
05
2018
accepted:
30
01
2019
entrez:
8
2
2019
pubmed:
8
2
2019
medline:
26
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of clinical quality registries as means for data driven improvement in healthcare seem promising. However, their use has been shown to be challenged by a number of aspects, and we suggest some may be related to poor implementation. There is a paucity of literature regarding barriers and facilitators for registry implementation, in particular aspects related to data collection and entry. We aimed to illuminate this by exploring how staff perceive the implementation process related to the registries within the field of cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark. A qualitative, interview-based study with staff involved in collecting and/or entering data into the two case registries (England N = 12, Denmark N = 12). Interviews were analysed using content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide interviews and the interpretation of results. The analysis identified both similarities and differences within and between the studied registries, and resulted in clarification of staffs´ experiences in an overarching theme: ´Struggling with practices´ and five categories; the data entry process, registry quality, resources and management support, quality improvement and the wider healthcare context. Overall, implementation received little focused attention. There was a lack of active support from management, and staff may experience a struggle of fitting use of a registry into a busy and complex everyday practice. The study highlights factors that may be important to consider when planning and implementing a new clinical quality registry within the field of cardiac rehabilitation, and is possibly transferrable to other fields. The results may thus be useful for policy makers, administrators and managers within the field and beyond. Targeting barriers and utilizing knowledge of facilitating factors is vital in order to improve the process of registry implementation, hence helping to achieve the intended improvement of care processes and outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of clinical quality registries as means for data driven improvement in healthcare seem promising. However, their use has been shown to be challenged by a number of aspects, and we suggest some may be related to poor implementation. There is a paucity of literature regarding barriers and facilitators for registry implementation, in particular aspects related to data collection and entry. We aimed to illuminate this by exploring how staff perceive the implementation process related to the registries within the field of cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark.
METHODS
METHODS
A qualitative, interview-based study with staff involved in collecting and/or entering data into the two case registries (England N = 12, Denmark N = 12). Interviews were analysed using content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide interviews and the interpretation of results.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analysis identified both similarities and differences within and between the studied registries, and resulted in clarification of staffs´ experiences in an overarching theme: ´Struggling with practices´ and five categories; the data entry process, registry quality, resources and management support, quality improvement and the wider healthcare context. Overall, implementation received little focused attention. There was a lack of active support from management, and staff may experience a struggle of fitting use of a registry into a busy and complex everyday practice.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The study highlights factors that may be important to consider when planning and implementing a new clinical quality registry within the field of cardiac rehabilitation, and is possibly transferrable to other fields. The results may thus be useful for policy makers, administrators and managers within the field and beyond. Targeting barriers and utilizing knowledge of facilitating factors is vital in order to improve the process of registry implementation, hence helping to achieve the intended improvement of care processes and outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30728028
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-3940-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-3940-5
pmc: PMC6366013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102Subventions
Organisme : Department of Medicine, Holbaek University Hospital
ID : None
Organisme : The Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Southern Region of Denmark
ID : None
Références
Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1189-208
pubmed: 10591279
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002 Nov-Dec;9(6):600-11
pubmed: 12386111
Health Serv Res. 2003 Apr;38(2):751-76
pubmed: 12785571
Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Feb;24(2):105-12
pubmed: 14769454
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Int J Med Inform. 2010 May;79(5):305-23
pubmed: 20189451
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010 Aug;17(4):410-8
pubmed: 20300001
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2012 Jan-Mar;27(1):e1-e17
pubmed: 21671457
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Jun;21(6):664-81
pubmed: 22718797
Implement Sci. 2013 Jan 03;8:4
pubmed: 23286552
Eur Heart J. 2013 May;34(17):1262-9
pubmed: 23376448
Qual Manag Health Care. 2014 Apr-Jun;23(2):119-28
pubmed: 24710187
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Aug 27;14:354
pubmed: 25158882
N Engl J Med. 2014 Dec 4;371(23):2150-3
pubmed: 25470693
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 12;(12):CD011273
pubmed: 25503364
Implement Sci. 2014 Dec 28;9:189
pubmed: 25544124
BMJ. 2015 Sep 29;351:h5000
pubmed: 26419744
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Nov 17;66(20):2230-2245
pubmed: 26440214
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Nov 25;15:519
pubmed: 26607344
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jan 5;67(1):1-12
pubmed: 26764059
N Z Med J. 2016 May 27;129(1435):50-8
pubmed: 27355168
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Oct 25;8:451-456
pubmed: 27822083
Open Heart. 2017 Jan 09;4(1):e000519
pubmed: 28123763
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017 Oct;24(15):1596-1609
pubmed: 28762761
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017 Dec;24(18):1925-1926
pubmed: 29067852