Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2-healthcare professionals' perspectives of the evidence rounds programme.
Barriers
Dissemination
Evidence-informed practice
Facilitators
Focus groups
Health services research
Implementation science
Interviews
Knowledge translation
Sustainability
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Mar 2019
06 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
18
03
2018
accepted:
08
02
2019
entrez:
8
3
2019
pubmed:
8
3
2019
medline:
25
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The translation of research into clinical practice is a key component of evidence-informed decision making. We implemented a multi-component dissemination and implementation strategy for healthcare professionals (HCPs) called Evidence Rounds. We report the findings of focus groups and interviews with HCPs to explore their perceptions of Evidence Rounds and help inform the implementation of future similar initiatives. This is the second paper in a two-part series. We employed total population, purposive sampling by targeting all of the health care professionals who attended or presented at group sessions exploring the evidence on clinical questions or topics chosen and presented by the HCPs. We conducted and audio-recorded in-person focus groups and one-to-one interviews, which were then transcribed verbatim. Two authors independently coded transcripts. NVivo software was used to collate the primary data and codes. We analysed data guided by the five steps involved in framework analysis; 1) familiarization 2) identifying a thematic framework 3) indexing 4) charting 5) mapping and interpretation. Thirteen HCPs participated, of which 6 were medical doctors an d 7 were nursing or midwifery staff. We identified the following key domains; organisational readiness for change, barriers and facilitators to attendance, barriers and facilitators to presenting, communication and dissemination of information, and sustainability. During focus groups and interviews HCPs reported that Evidence Rounds had a positive impact on their continuing education and clinical practice. They also provided insights into how future initiatives could be optimised to support and enable them to narrow the gap between research evidence and practice. Individual, departmental and organisational level contextual factors can play a major role in implementation within complex health services. HCPs highlighted how in combination with clinical guideline development, implementation of evidence could be increased. Further research after a longer period of implementation could investigate how initiatives might be optimised to promote the uptake of evidence, improve implementation and expedite behaviour change.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The translation of research into clinical practice is a key component of evidence-informed decision making. We implemented a multi-component dissemination and implementation strategy for healthcare professionals (HCPs) called Evidence Rounds. We report the findings of focus groups and interviews with HCPs to explore their perceptions of Evidence Rounds and help inform the implementation of future similar initiatives. This is the second paper in a two-part series.
METHODS
METHODS
We employed total population, purposive sampling by targeting all of the health care professionals who attended or presented at group sessions exploring the evidence on clinical questions or topics chosen and presented by the HCPs. We conducted and audio-recorded in-person focus groups and one-to-one interviews, which were then transcribed verbatim. Two authors independently coded transcripts. NVivo software was used to collate the primary data and codes. We analysed data guided by the five steps involved in framework analysis; 1) familiarization 2) identifying a thematic framework 3) indexing 4) charting 5) mapping and interpretation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirteen HCPs participated, of which 6 were medical doctors an d 7 were nursing or midwifery staff. We identified the following key domains; organisational readiness for change, barriers and facilitators to attendance, barriers and facilitators to presenting, communication and dissemination of information, and sustainability. During focus groups and interviews HCPs reported that Evidence Rounds had a positive impact on their continuing education and clinical practice. They also provided insights into how future initiatives could be optimised to support and enable them to narrow the gap between research evidence and practice.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Individual, departmental and organisational level contextual factors can play a major role in implementation within complex health services. HCPs highlighted how in combination with clinical guideline development, implementation of evidence could be increased. Further research after a longer period of implementation could investigate how initiatives might be optimised to promote the uptake of evidence, improve implementation and expedite behaviour change.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30841872
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1488-z
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1488-z
pmc: PMC6402168
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
75Références
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Nov 22;17(1):226
pubmed: 29166902
BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jun 22;4:212
pubmed: 21696585
Implement Sci. 2014 Oct 06;9:152
pubmed: 25287951
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Mar 05;4(3):123-6
pubmed: 25774368
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 22;11:42
pubmed: 27000147
Evid Based Ment Health. 2001 Feb;4(1):3-5
pubmed: 11467070
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Jul 18;14(1):49
pubmed: 27431911
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33
pubmed: 15692000
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2002 Fall;22(4):237-43
pubmed: 12613059
BMC Med Educ. 2007 Jul 12;7:22
pubmed: 17626625
BMJ. 1998 Jul 25;317(7153):273-6
pubmed: 9677226
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986
PLoS Med. 2005 Jul;2(7):e166
pubmed: 15913387
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 19;11(1):141
pubmed: 27756414
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD003030
pubmed: 19370580
Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 14;7:17
pubmed: 22417162
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 May;21(5):538-41
pubmed: 16704406
Implement Sci. 2012 Nov 21;7:112
pubmed: 23171660
Implement Sci. 2016 Sep 20;11(1):126
pubmed: 27647000
Med J Aust. 2004 Mar 15;180(S6):S57-60
pubmed: 15012583
BMJ. 2014 Jun 13;348:g3725
pubmed: 24927763
Implement Sci. 2015 Jul 14;10:98
pubmed: 26169063
Implement Sci. 2015 Nov 20;10:162
pubmed: 26589972
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2013 Nov;(213):1-520
pubmed: 24423078
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2015;109(4-5):285-90
pubmed: 26354128
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Oct 12;16(1):69
pubmed: 26459219
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):543-546
pubmed: 28936762
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;10:CD004398
pubmed: 23076904
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
Med Educ. 2016 Dec;50(12):1204-1207
pubmed: 27873408
Implement Sci. 2016 Apr 21;11:55
pubmed: 27097827
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):389-392
pubmed: 28884305
Implement Sci. 2012 May 31;7:50
pubmed: 22651257
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Mar 6;19(1):74
pubmed: 30841893