BACKGROUND: There is currently no reliable way to choose strategies that are appropriate for implementing guidelines facing different barriers. This study examined trends in guideline implementation by topic over a 10-year period to explore whether and how strategies may be suitable for addressing differing barriers.
METHODS: A scoping systematic review was performed. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2004 to 2013 for studies that evaluated the implementation of guidelines on arthritis, diabetes, colorectal cancer and heart failure. Data on study characteristics, reason for implementation (new guideline or quality improvement), implementation strategy used, rationale for selecting that strategy and reported impact were extracted and summarized. Interventions were mapped against a published taxonomy of guideline implementation strategies.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 1,709 articles; 156 were retrieved and 127 were excluded largely because they did not evaluate guideline implementation, leaving 32 eligible for review (4 arthritis, 3 colorectal cancer, 21 diabetes, 4 heart failure). Six of 7 randomized trials and 8 of 25 observational studies had a low risk of bias. Most studies promoted guideline use for quality improvement (78.0%). Few studies rationalized strategy choice (18.8%). Most employed multiple approaches and strategies, most often educational meetings and print material for professionals or patients. Few studies employed organizational, financial or regulatory approaches. Strategies employed that were unique to the published taxonomy included professional (print material, tailoring guidelines, self-audit training or material) and patient strategies (education, counselling, group interaction, print material, reminders). Most studies achieved positive impact (87.5%). This did not appear to be associated with guideline topic, use of theory or barrier assessment, or number or type of implementation approaches and strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: While few studies were eligible, limiting insight on how to choose implementation strategies that address guideline-specific barriers, this review identified other important findings. Education for professionals or patients and print material were the most commonly employed strategies for translating guidelines to practice. Mapping of strategies onto the published taxonomy identified gaps in guideline implementation that represent opportunities for future research and expanded the taxonomy.
BackgroundThe Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a framework developed to redesign care delivery for individuals living with chronic diseases in primary care. The CCM and its various components have been widely adopted and evaluated, however, little is known about different primary care experiences with its implementation, and the factors that influence its successful uptake. The purpose of this review is to synthesize findings of studies that implemented the CCM in primary care, in order to identify facilitators and barriers encountered during implementation.MethodsThis study identified English-language, peer-reviewed research articles, describing the CCM in primary care settings. Searches were performed in three data bases: Web of Knowledge, Pubmed and Scopus. Article abstracts and titles were read based on whether they met the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies published after 2003 that described or evaluated the implementation of the CCM; 2) the care setting was primary care; 3) the target population of the study was adults over the age of 18 with chronic conditions. Studies were categorized by reference, study design and methods, participants and setting, study objective, CCM components used, and description of the intervention. The next stage of data abstraction involved qualitative analysis of cited barriers and facilitators using the Consolidating Framework for Research Implementation.ResultsThis review identified barriers and facilitators of implementation across various primary care settings in 22 studies. The major emerging themes were those related to the inner setting of the organization, the process of implementation and characteristics of the individual healthcare providers. These included: organizational culture, its structural characteristics, networks and communication, implementation climate and readiness, presence of supportive leadership, and provider attitudes and beliefs.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the importance of assessing organizational capacity and needs prior to and during the implementation of the CCM, as well as gaining a better understanding of health care providers¿ and organizational perspective.
BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of chronic disease faced by both developed and developing countries is of considerable concern to a number of international organisations. Many of the interventions to address this concern within primary healthcare settings are based on the chronic care model (CCM). The implementation of complex interventions such as CCMs requires careful consideration and planning. Success depends on a number of factors at the healthcare provider, team, organisation and system levels.
METHODS: The aim of this systematic review was to systematically examine the scientific literature in order to understand the facilitators and barriers to implementing CCMs within a primary healthcare setting. This review focused on both quantitative and qualitative studies which included patients with chronic disease (cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic respiratory disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression and HIV/AIDS) receiving care in primary healthcare settings, as well as primary healthcare providers such as doctors, nurses and administrators. Papers were limited to those published in English between 1998 and 2013.
RESULTS: The search returned 3492 articles. The majority of these studies were subsequently excluded based on their title or abstract because they clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review. A total of 226 full text articles were obtained and a further 188 were excluded as they did not meet the criteria. Thirty eight published peer-reviewed articles were ultimately included in this review. Five primary themes emerged. In addition to ensuring appropriate resources to support implementation and sustainability, the acceptability of the intervention for both patients and healthcare providers contributed to the success of the intervention. There was also a need to prepare healthcare providers for the implementation of a CCM, and to support patients as the way in which they receive care changes.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrated the importance of considering human factors including the influence that different stakeholders have on the success or otherwise of the implementing a CCM.
CONTEXT: In response to national efforts to improve quality of care, policymakers and health care leaders have increasingly turned to quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) as an efficient approach to improving provider practices and patient outcomes through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. This article presents findings from a systematic review of the literature on QICs, focusing on the identification of common components of QICs in health care and exploring, when possible, relations between QIC components and outcomes at the patient or provider level.
METHODS: A systematic search of five major health care databases generated 294 unique articles, twenty-four of which met our criteria for inclusion in our final analysis. These articles pertained to either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups, and they reported the findings from twenty different studies of QICs in health care. We coded the articles to identify the components reported for each collaborative.
FINDINGS: We found fourteen crosscutting components as common ingredients in health care QICs (e.g., in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in QI methods). The collaboratives reported included, on average, six to seven of these components. The most common were in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, multidisciplinary QI teams, and data collection for QI. The outcomes data from these studies indicate the greatest impact of QICs at the provider level; patient-level findings were less robust.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting on specific components of the collaborative was imprecise across articles, rendering it impossible to identify active QIC ingredients linked to improved care. Although QICs appear to have some promise in improving the process of care, there is great need for further controlled research examining the core components of these collaboratives related to patient- and provider-level outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The delivery of effective, high-quality patient care is a complex activity. It demands health and social care professionals collaborate in an effective manner. Research continues to suggest that collaboration between these professionals can be problematic. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve interprofessional collaboration and patient care.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific education interventions; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 2006 to 2011. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (2006 to 2011), reference lists of all included studies, the proceedings of leading IPE conferences, and websites of IPE organisations.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client or healthcare process outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. For included studies, at least two review authors extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format.
MAIN RESULTS: This update located nine new studies, which were added to the six studies from our last update in 2008. This review now includes 15 studies (eight RCTs, five CBA and two ITS studies). All of these studies measured the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no educational intervention. Seven studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: diabetes care, emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; collaborative team behaviour in operating rooms; management of care delivered in cases of domestic violence; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, four of the studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.
There is currently no reliable way to choose strategies that are appropriate for implementing guidelines facing different barriers. This study examined trends in guideline implementation by topic over a 10-year period to explore whether and how strategies may be suitable for addressing differing barriers.
METHODS:
A scoping systematic review was performed. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2004 to 2013 for studies that evaluated the implementation of guidelines on arthritis, diabetes, colorectal cancer and heart failure. Data on study characteristics, reason for implementation (new guideline or quality improvement), implementation strategy used, rationale for selecting that strategy and reported impact were extracted and summarized. Interventions were mapped against a published taxonomy of guideline implementation strategies.
RESULTS:
The search resulted in 1,709 articles; 156 were retrieved and 127 were excluded largely because they did not evaluate guideline implementation, leaving 32 eligible for review (4 arthritis, 3 colorectal cancer, 21 diabetes, 4 heart failure). Six of 7 randomized trials and 8 of 25 observational studies had a low risk of bias. Most studies promoted guideline use for quality improvement (78.0%). Few studies rationalized strategy choice (18.8%). Most employed multiple approaches and strategies, most often educational meetings and print material for professionals or patients. Few studies employed organizational, financial or regulatory approaches. Strategies employed that were unique to the published taxonomy included professional (print material, tailoring guidelines, self-audit training or material) and patient strategies (education, counselling, group interaction, print material, reminders). Most studies achieved positive impact (87.5%). This did not appear to be associated with guideline topic, use of theory or barrier assessment, or number or type of implementation approaches and strategies.
CONCLUSIONS:
While few studies were eligible, limiting insight on how to choose implementation strategies that address guideline-specific barriers, this review identified other important findings. Education for professionals or patients and print material were the most commonly employed strategies for translating guidelines to practice. Mapping of strategies onto the published taxonomy identified gaps in guideline implementation that represent opportunities for future research and expanded the taxonomy.
