Cargando…
Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis
BACKGROUND: The study objective was to analyse the implementation challenges experienced in carrying out the IMPROVE programme. This programme was designed to implement checklist-related improvement initiatives based on the national perioperative guidelines using a stepped-wedge trial design. A proc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8542304/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34688287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07090-z |
_version_ | 1784589403337785344 |
---|---|
author | Emond, Yvette Wolff, André Bloo, Gerrit Damen, Johan Westert, Gert Wollersheim, Hub Calsbeek, Hiske |
author_facet | Emond, Yvette Wolff, André Bloo, Gerrit Damen, Johan Westert, Gert Wollersheim, Hub Calsbeek, Hiske |
author_sort | Emond, Yvette |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The study objective was to analyse the implementation challenges experienced in carrying out the IMPROVE programme. This programme was designed to implement checklist-related improvement initiatives based on the national perioperative guidelines using a stepped-wedge trial design. A process analysis was carried out to investigate the involvement in the implementation activities. METHODS: An involvement rating measure was developed to express the extent to which the implementation programme was carried out in the hospitals. This measure reflects the number of IMPROVE-implementation activities executed and the estimated participation in these activities in all nine participating hospitals. These data were compared with prospectively collected field notes. RESULTS: Considerable variation between the hospitals was found with involvement ratings ranging from 0 to 6 (mean per measurement = 1.83 on a scale of 0–11). Major implementation challenges were respectively the study design (fixed design, time planning, long duration, repeated measurements, and data availability); the selection process of hospitals, departments and key contact person(s) (inadequately covering the entire perioperative team and stand-alone surgeons); the implementation programme (programme size and scope, tailoring, multicentre, lack of mandate, co-interventions by the Inspectorate, local intervention initiatives, intervention fatigue); and competitive events such as hospital mergers or the introduction of new IT systems, all reducing involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The process analysis approach helped to explain the limited and delayed execution of the IMPROVE-implementation programme. This turned out to be very heterogeneous between hospitals, with variation in the number and content of implementation activities carried out. The identified implementation challenges reflect a high complexity with regard to the implementation programme, study design and setting. The involvement of the target professionals was put under pressure by many factors. We mostly encountered challenges, but at the same time we provide solutions for addressing them. A less complex implementation programme, a less fixed study design, a better thought-out selection of contact persons, as well as more commitment of the hospital management and surgeons would likely have contributed to better implementation results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568, retrospectively registered on 2 August 2012. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07090-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8542304 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85423042021-10-25 Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis Emond, Yvette Wolff, André Bloo, Gerrit Damen, Johan Westert, Gert Wollersheim, Hub Calsbeek, Hiske BMC Health Serv Res Research BACKGROUND: The study objective was to analyse the implementation challenges experienced in carrying out the IMPROVE programme. This programme was designed to implement checklist-related improvement initiatives based on the national perioperative guidelines using a stepped-wedge trial design. A process analysis was carried out to investigate the involvement in the implementation activities. METHODS: An involvement rating measure was developed to express the extent to which the implementation programme was carried out in the hospitals. This measure reflects the number of IMPROVE-implementation activities executed and the estimated participation in these activities in all nine participating hospitals. These data were compared with prospectively collected field notes. RESULTS: Considerable variation between the hospitals was found with involvement ratings ranging from 0 to 6 (mean per measurement = 1.83 on a scale of 0–11). Major implementation challenges were respectively the study design (fixed design, time planning, long duration, repeated measurements, and data availability); the selection process of hospitals, departments and key contact person(s) (inadequately covering the entire perioperative team and stand-alone surgeons); the implementation programme (programme size and scope, tailoring, multicentre, lack of mandate, co-interventions by the Inspectorate, local intervention initiatives, intervention fatigue); and competitive events such as hospital mergers or the introduction of new IT systems, all reducing involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The process analysis approach helped to explain the limited and delayed execution of the IMPROVE-implementation programme. This turned out to be very heterogeneous between hospitals, with variation in the number and content of implementation activities carried out. The identified implementation challenges reflect a high complexity with regard to the implementation programme, study design and setting. The involvement of the target professionals was put under pressure by many factors. We mostly encountered challenges, but at the same time we provide solutions for addressing them. A less complex implementation programme, a less fixed study design, a better thought-out selection of contact persons, as well as more commitment of the hospital management and surgeons would likely have contributed to better implementation results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568, retrospectively registered on 2 August 2012. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07090-z. BioMed Central 2021-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8542304/ /pubmed/34688287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07090-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Emond, Yvette Wolff, André Bloo, Gerrit Damen, Johan Westert, Gert Wollersheim, Hub Calsbeek, Hiske Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis |
title | Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis |
title_full | Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis |
title_fullStr | Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis |
title_short | Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis |
title_sort | complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8542304/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34688287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07090-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT emondyvette complexityandinvolvementasimplementationchallengesresultsfromaprocessanalysis AT wolffandre complexityandinvolvementasimplementationchallengesresultsfromaprocessanalysis AT bloogerrit complexityandinvolvementasimplementationchallengesresultsfromaprocessanalysis AT damenjohan complexityandinvolvementasimplementationchallengesresultsfromaprocessanalysis AT westertgert complexityandinvolvementasimplementationchallengesresultsfromaprocessanalysis AT wollersheimhub complexityandinvolvementasimplementationchallengesresultsfromaprocessanalysis AT calsbeekhiske complexityandinvolvementasimplementationchallengesresultsfromaprocessanalysis |