Stimulating implementation of clinical practice guidelines in hospital care from a central guideline organization perspective: A systematic review

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105135
Andrea C. Thoonsen , Steffie M. van Schoten , Hanneke Merten , Ilse van Beusekom , Linda J. Schoonmade , Diana M.J. Delnoij , Martine C. de Bruijne
{"title":"Stimulating implementation of clinical practice guidelines in hospital care from a central guideline organization perspective: A systematic review","authors":"Andrea C. Thoonsen ,&nbsp;Steffie M. van Schoten ,&nbsp;Hanneke Merten ,&nbsp;Ilse van Beusekom ,&nbsp;Linda J. Schoonmade ,&nbsp;Diana M.J. Delnoij ,&nbsp;Martine C. de Bruijne","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The uptake of guidelines in care is inconsistent. This review focuses on guideline implementation strategies used by guideline organizations (governmental agencies, scientific/professional societies and other umbrella organizations), experienced implementation barriers and facilitators and impact of their implementation efforts.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and CINAHL and conducted snowballing. Eligibility criteria included guidelines focused on hospital care and OECD countries. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used framework analysis, narrative synthesis and summary statistics.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-six articles were included. Sixty-two implementation strategies were reported, used in different combinations and ranged between 1 and 16 strategies per initiative. Most frequently reported strategies were educational session(s) and implementation supporting materials. The most commonly reported barrier and facilitator were respectively insufficient healthcare professionals’ time and resources; and guideline's credibility, evidence base and relevance. Eighty-five percent of initiatives that measured impact achieved improvements in adoption, knowledge, behavior and/or clinical outcomes. No clear optimal approach for improving guideline uptake and impact was found. However, we found indications that employing multiple active implementation strategies and involving external organizations and hospital staff were associated with improvements.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Guideline organizations employ diverse implementation strategies and encounter multiple barriers and facilitators. Our study uncovered potential effective implementation practices. However, further research is needed on effective tailoring of implementation approaches to increase uptake and impact of guidelines.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55067,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy","volume":"148 ","pages":"Article 105135"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851024001453/pdfft?md5=d4020befb51154ea26df94e15312c2d2&pid=1-s2.0-S0168851024001453-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851024001453","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The uptake of guidelines in care is inconsistent. This review focuses on guideline implementation strategies used by guideline organizations (governmental agencies, scientific/professional societies and other umbrella organizations), experienced implementation barriers and facilitators and impact of their implementation efforts.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and CINAHL and conducted snowballing. Eligibility criteria included guidelines focused on hospital care and OECD countries. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used framework analysis, narrative synthesis and summary statistics.

Results

Twenty-six articles were included. Sixty-two implementation strategies were reported, used in different combinations and ranged between 1 and 16 strategies per initiative. Most frequently reported strategies were educational session(s) and implementation supporting materials. The most commonly reported barrier and facilitator were respectively insufficient healthcare professionals’ time and resources; and guideline's credibility, evidence base and relevance. Eighty-five percent of initiatives that measured impact achieved improvements in adoption, knowledge, behavior and/or clinical outcomes. No clear optimal approach for improving guideline uptake and impact was found. However, we found indications that employing multiple active implementation strategies and involving external organizations and hospital staff were associated with improvements.

Conclusion

Guideline organizations employ diverse implementation strategies and encounter multiple barriers and facilitators. Our study uncovered potential effective implementation practices. However, further research is needed on effective tailoring of implementation approaches to increase uptake and impact of guidelines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从中央指南组织的角度促进医院护理中临床实践指南的实施:系统综述
背景指南在护理中的应用并不一致。本综述重点关注指南组织(政府机构、科学/专业协会及其他伞式组织)所采用的指南实施策略、实施过程中遇到的障碍、促进因素及其实施工作的影响。资格标准包括侧重于医院护理和经合组织国家的指南。研究质量采用混合方法评估工具进行评估。我们采用了框架分析、叙事综合和汇总统计等方法。共报告了 62 项实施策略,这些策略以不同的组合形式使用,每项措施使用的策略从 1 到 16 种不等。最常报道的策略是教育课程和实施辅助材料。最常报告的障碍和促进因素分别是医护人员的时间和资源不足,以及指南的可信度、证据基础和相关性。85%的衡量影响的倡议在采用、知识、行为和/或临床结果方面取得了改善。在提高指南的采用率和影响力方面,没有发现明确的最佳方法。然而,我们发现有迹象表明,采用多种积极的实施策略以及让外部机构和医院员工参与进来与改善效果有关。我们的研究发现了潜在的有效实施方法。然而,还需要进一步研究如何有效调整实施方法,以提高指南的吸收率和影响力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy
Health Policy 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Policy is intended to be a vehicle for the exploration and discussion of health policy and health system issues and is aimed in particular at enhancing communication between health policy and system researchers, legislators, decision-makers and professionals concerned with developing, implementing, and analysing health policy, health systems and health care reforms, primarily in high-income countries outside the U.S.A.
期刊最新文献
How COVID-19 illness perceptions and individual shocks are associated with trust during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, France, Germany, and South Africa. Implementing integrated care infrastructure: A longitudinal study on the interplay of policies, interorganizational arrangements and interoperability in NHS England. Public contributions to R&D of medical innovations: A framework for analysis. What mechanisms lead to the endurance of health and social care integration? A multiple case study in Italy. The right to health for socioeconomically disadvantaged TB patients in South Korea: An AAAQ framework analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1