Process evaluation of an implementation trial to improve the triage, treatment and transfer of stroke patients in emergency departments (T
Acute stroke
Emergency departments
Normalisation process theory
Process evaluation
Qualitative design
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 11 2020
04 11 2020
Historique:
received:
28
04
2020
accepted:
19
10
2020
entrez:
5
11
2020
pubmed:
6
11
2020
medline:
26
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The implementation of evidence-based protocols for stroke management in the emergency department (ED) for the appropriate triage, administration of tissue plasminogen activator to eligible patients, management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing, and prompt transfer to a stroke unit were evaluated in an Australian cluster-randomised trial (T Qualitative face-to-face interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED and stroke clinicians from two high- and two low-performing intervention sites about their views on factors that influenced protocol uptake. All Trial State Co-ordinators (n = 3) who supported the implementation at the 13 intervention sites were also interviewed. Data were analysed thematically using normalisation process theory as a sensitising framework to understand key findings, and compared and contrasted between interviewee groups. Twenty-five ED and stroke clinicians, and three Trial State Co-ordinators were interviewed. Three major themes represented key influences on evidence uptake: (i) Readiness to change: reflected strategies to mobilise and engage clinical teams to foster cognitive participation and collective action; (ii) Fidelity to the protocols: reflected that beliefs about the evidence underpinning the protocols impeded the development of a shared understanding about the applicability of the protocols in the ED context (coherence); and (iii) Boundaries of care: reflected that appraisal (reflexive monitoring) by ED and stroke teams about their respective boundaries of clinical practice impeded uptake of the protocols. Despite initial high 'buy-in' from clinicians, a theoretically informed and comprehensive implementation strategy was unable to overcome system and clinician level barriers. Initiatives to drive change and integrate protocols rested largely with senior nurses who had to overcome contextual factors that fell outside their control, including low medical engagement, beliefs about the supporting evidence and perceptions of professional boundaries. To maximise uptake of evidence and adherence to intervention fidelity in complex clinical settings such as ED cost-effective strategies are needed to overcome these barriers. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12614000939695 ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The implementation of evidence-based protocols for stroke management in the emergency department (ED) for the appropriate triage, administration of tissue plasminogen activator to eligible patients, management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing, and prompt transfer to a stroke unit were evaluated in an Australian cluster-randomised trial (T
METHODS
Qualitative face-to-face interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED and stroke clinicians from two high- and two low-performing intervention sites about their views on factors that influenced protocol uptake. All Trial State Co-ordinators (n = 3) who supported the implementation at the 13 intervention sites were also interviewed. Data were analysed thematically using normalisation process theory as a sensitising framework to understand key findings, and compared and contrasted between interviewee groups.
RESULTS
Twenty-five ED and stroke clinicians, and three Trial State Co-ordinators were interviewed. Three major themes represented key influences on evidence uptake: (i) Readiness to change: reflected strategies to mobilise and engage clinical teams to foster cognitive participation and collective action; (ii) Fidelity to the protocols: reflected that beliefs about the evidence underpinning the protocols impeded the development of a shared understanding about the applicability of the protocols in the ED context (coherence); and (iii) Boundaries of care: reflected that appraisal (reflexive monitoring) by ED and stroke teams about their respective boundaries of clinical practice impeded uptake of the protocols.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite initial high 'buy-in' from clinicians, a theoretically informed and comprehensive implementation strategy was unable to overcome system and clinician level barriers. Initiatives to drive change and integrate protocols rested largely with senior nurses who had to overcome contextual factors that fell outside their control, including low medical engagement, beliefs about the supporting evidence and perceptions of professional boundaries. To maximise uptake of evidence and adherence to intervention fidelity in complex clinical settings such as ED cost-effective strategies are needed to overcome these barriers.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12614000939695 ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33148343
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01057-0
pii: 10.1186/s13012-020-01057-0
pmc: PMC7640433
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tissue Plasminogen Activator
EC 3.4.21.68
Banques de données
ANZCTR
['ACTRN12614000939695']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
99Références
Lancet. 2011 Nov 12;378(9804):1699-706
pubmed: 21996470
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Aug;138:234-40
pubmed: 26123882
Crit Care Med. 2007 Nov;35(11):2525-32
pubmed: 18075366
Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40
pubmed: 10940958
Crit Care Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):504-9
pubmed: 20016377
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 13;9:8
pubmed: 24418161
Int Emerg Nurs. 2014 Jan;22(1):3-9
pubmed: 23669027
Implement Sci. 2018 Jun 7;13(1):80
pubmed: 29879986
Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):439-458
pubmed: 30871944
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Feb;61:249-257
pubmed: 29272824
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 19;11(1):141
pubmed: 27756414
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015 Sep 22;8:433-42
pubmed: 26445548
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 29;14(1):42
pubmed: 31036028
Eur Stroke J. 2020 Mar;5(1):17-25
pubmed: 32232166
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 23;13(1):36
pubmed: 29475440
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 4;9(3):e012732
pubmed: 31973599
Implement Sci. 2019 Nov 27;14(1):98
pubmed: 31771599
Implement Sci. 2020 Aug 6;15(1):62
pubmed: 32762726
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 09;10:45
pubmed: 25890280
Implement Sci. 2017 Jul 17;12(1):88
pubmed: 28716152
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 May 10;16:52
pubmed: 27164839
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Jun 26;8:267
pubmed: 26111807
Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2016 Aug 1;30(3):258-271
pubmed: 28304270
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1283-97
pubmed: 19318384
Trials. 2013 Jan 12;14:15
pubmed: 23311722
Implement Sci. 2016 Nov 28;11(1):157
pubmed: 27894313
J Clin Nurs. 2016 Oct;25(19-20):2786-97
pubmed: 27273150
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 03;5:67
pubmed: 20815872
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Feb 7;17(1):24
pubmed: 28173749