Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: a systematic review.


Journal

BMC family practice
ISSN: 1471-2296
Titre abrégé: BMC Fam Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967792

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 06 2020
Historique:
received: 24 01 2020
accepted: 28 05 2020
entrez: 21 6 2020
pubmed: 21 6 2020
medline: 10 7 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Care pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC). A systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65 years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (main project reports) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. Fourteen studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good multi-disciplinary communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators. In the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087689.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Care pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC).
METHODS
A systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65 years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (main project reports) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good multi-disciplinary communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators.
CONCLUSIONS
In the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087689.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32560697
doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01179-w
pii: 10.1186/s12875-020-01179-w
pmc: PMC7305630
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

113

Subventions

Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 01GY1603C
Pays : International

Références

J Nutr Health Aging. 2011 Jun;15(6):490-7
pubmed: 21623472
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 23;13(1):36
pubmed: 29475440
J Neurol. 2016 Apr;263 Suppl 1:S36-44
pubmed: 27083883
Healthc Policy. 2009 Nov;5 Spec no:33-46
pubmed: 21037902
Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(11):937-46
pubmed: 19860600
Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(9):696-708
pubmed: 17852321
Arch Intern Med. 2008 Oct 27;168(19):2118-24
pubmed: 18955641
Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 25;169(10):938-44
pubmed: 19468085
Clin Auton Res. 2011 Jun;21(3):161-8
pubmed: 21279415
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Feb 20;19(1):33
pubmed: 29458336
Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):226-37
pubmed: 24139708
Laryngoscope. 2012 Aug;122(8):1858-61
pubmed: 22645067
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 May 14;13:36
pubmed: 22584032
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Sep;50(9):1184-96
pubmed: 23384696
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Jun 5;112(23):387-93
pubmed: 26157011
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17;(3):CD006632
pubmed: 20238347
Healthcare (Basel). 2016 Jun 29;4(3):
pubmed: 27417624
BMC Med. 2016 Feb 23;14:35
pubmed: 26904977
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2018 Dec;17(4):191-200
pubmed: 30418249
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jul;33(7):1142-1154
pubmed: 29728892
J Knee Surg. 2014 Jun;27(3):221-8
pubmed: 24234550
Med Care. 2001 Aug;39(8 Suppl 2):II46-54
pubmed: 11583121
Fam Pract. 2008 Dec;25(6):430-7
pubmed: 18718886
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010 Mar-Apr;50(2):165-70
pubmed: 19406488
Ann Fam Med. 2010 May-Jun;8(3):196-205
pubmed: 20458102
J Gerontol Nurs. 2015 Sep 1;41(9):20-9; quiz 30-1
pubmed: 26375146
J Neurol. 2010 Mar;257(3):392-8
pubmed: 19784714
BMJ Open. 2017 May 4;7(4):e013816
pubmed: 28473509
J Neurol. 2014 Aug;261(8):1492-8
pubmed: 24817192
Appl Nurs Res. 2017 Feb;33:85-92
pubmed: 28096029
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Sep;64(9):1779-88
pubmed: 27459236
PLoS Med. 2015 Feb 17;12(2):e1001783
pubmed: 25689364
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Oct;69(10):2262-73
pubmed: 23461433
Age Ageing. 2008 May;37(3):282-7
pubmed: 18285347
BMC Med. 2010 May 27;8:31
pubmed: 20507550
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Mar;63(3):283-90
pubmed: 18375877
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 26;348(26):2635-45
pubmed: 12826639
Implement Sci. 2017 Feb 15;12(1):21
pubmed: 28202031
ERJ Open Res. 2017 Dec 08;3(4):
pubmed: 29250529
BMJ. 2013 Sep 10;347:f5264
pubmed: 24022033
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Jul 1;25(7):901-906
pubmed: 29529203
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Feb;13(1):75-84
pubmed: 26873373

Auteurs

Eva Seckler (E)

Centre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany. eva.seckler@th-rosenheim.de.
Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Marchioninistraße 17, 81377, Munich, Germany. eva.seckler@th-rosenheim.de.

Verena Regauer (V)

Centre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.
Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Marchioninistraße 17, 81377, Munich, Germany.

Thomas Rotter (T)

Healthcare Quality Programs, Queen's University, 84 Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada.

Petra Bauer (P)

Centre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.
Faculty for Applied Health and Social Sciences, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.

Martin Müller (M)

Centre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.
Faculty for Applied Health and Social Sciences, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH