Cargando…

Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme

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 in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conway, Aislinn, Dowling, Maura, Devane, Declan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6402168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30841872
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1488-z
_version_ 1783400338199412736
author Conway, Aislinn
Dowling, Maura
Devane, Declan
author_facet Conway, Aislinn
Dowling, Maura
Devane, Declan
author_sort Conway, Aislinn
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: 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: 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-019-1488-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6402168
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64021682019-03-14 Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme Conway, Aislinn Dowling, Maura Devane, Declan BMC Med Educ Research Article 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: 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: 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: 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-019-1488-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6402168/ /pubmed/30841872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1488-z Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Conway, Aislinn
Dowling, Maura
Devane, Declan
Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme
title Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme
title_full Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme
title_fullStr Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme
title_full_unstemmed Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme
title_short Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme
title_sort implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2—healthcare professionals’ perspectives of the evidence rounds programme
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6402168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30841872
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1488-z
work_keys_str_mv AT conwayaislinn implementinganinitiativepromoteevidenceinformedpracticepart2healthcareprofessionalsperspectivesoftheevidenceroundsprogramme
AT dowlingmaura implementinganinitiativepromoteevidenceinformedpracticepart2healthcareprofessionalsperspectivesoftheevidenceroundsprogramme
AT devanedeclan implementinganinitiativepromoteevidenceinformedpracticepart2healthcareprofessionalsperspectivesoftheevidenceroundsprogramme