An evaluation of implementation climate in inpatient maternity care: a cross-sectional survey study

OBJECTIVE: Researchers in obstetrics and gynecology are continuously generating new evidence to inform clinical care delivery. Yet, much of this newly emerging evidence fails to be rapidly and effectively integrated into routine clinical practice. Implementation climate refers to clinicians’ perceptions of to what degree organizations support and reward use of an evidence-based practice (EBP) and is an important construct in the science of implementation in healthcare. Little is known about implementation climate for EBPs in maternity care. Thus, we aimed to (a) determine the reliability of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) for use in inpatient maternity care, (b) describe implementation climate in inpatient maternity care overall, and (c) compare individual perceptions of implementation climate between physician and nursing clinicians on these units. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional survey of clinicians in inpatient maternity units across 2 urban, academic hospitals in the northeastern United States in 2020. Clinicians completed the 18-question validated ICS [scored 0–4]. Scale reliability by role was evaluated using Cronbach’s α. Subscale and total scores were described overall and compared by physician versus nursing role using independent t-tests, as well as linear regression to control for confounders. RESULTS: 111 clinicians completed the survey (physicians = 65; nursing = 46). Physicians were less likely to identify as female (75.4% vs. 100.0%, p < .001), but were of similar age and years of experience as nursing clinicians. Reliability of the ICS was excellent, with Cronbach’s α of 0.91 and 0.86 among physicians and nursing clinicians, respectively. Scores were notably low for implementation climate in maternity care overall and for all subscales. ICS total scores were also higher among physicians as compared to nurses (2.18(±0.56) vs. 1.92(±0.50), p = .02), which remained significant in multivariable modeling (p = .02). Unadjusted subscale scores were higher among physicians in Recognition for EBP (2.68(±0.89) vs. 2.30(±0.86), p = .03) and Selection for EBP (2.24(±0.93) vs. 1.62(±1.04), p = .002). After adjustment for potential confounders, subscale scores for Focus on EBP (p = .04) and Selection for EBP (p = .002) were all higher among physicians. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the ICS as a reliable scale for measuring implementation climate in the inpatient maternity care setting. Notably lower implementation climate scores across subscales and roles compared to other settings may underlie the vast evidence to practice gap in obstetrics. In order to successfully implement practices that reduce maternal morbidity, we may need to focus on building educational support and rewarding EBP utilization on labor and delivery units, with an emphasis on nursing clinicians.