A mixed-methods observational study of strategies for success in implementation science: overcoming emergency departments hurdles.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-12102-9
Deonni P Stolldorf, Alan B Storrow, Dandan Liu, Cathy A Jenkins, Rachel A Hilton, Karen F Miller, Joy Kim, Deepika Boopathy, Satheesh Gunaga, Bory Kea, Joseph Miller, Sean P Collins
{"title":"A mixed-methods observational study of strategies for success in implementation science: overcoming emergency departments hurdles.","authors":"Deonni P Stolldorf, Alan B Storrow, Dandan Liu, Cathy A Jenkins, Rachel A Hilton, Karen F Miller, Joy Kim, Deepika Boopathy, Satheesh Gunaga, Bory Kea, Joseph Miller, Sean P Collins","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-12102-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart failure is a major public health concern, affecting 6.7 million Americans. An estimated 16% of emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) are discharged home. Our Get with the Guidelines in Emergency Department Patients with Heart Failure (GUIDED-HF) toolkit aims to improve AHF self-care and facilitate safer transitions in care for these patients. We describe implementation barriers and facilitators, and the selection and refinement of implementation strategies, to facilitate future GUIDED-HF implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study was conducted in four United States EDs in two diverse healthcare systems in the Pacific West and Midwest. Data were collected using a survey and interviews with ED providers, nurses, and leaders. The survey assessed the ED context using the context scale of the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed interviews. Quantitative data were summarized using medians (interquartile ranges) or percentages (frequencies). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess differences in the healthcare system and profession. Qualitative data were analyzed and summarized using rapid qualitative analysis. Convergence of quantitative and qualitative data was used to inform specific refining of implementation strategies to the local context (e.g., who should serve as champions, how best practice alerts should be implemented).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were predominately white (76%) with median (IQR) age 37.0 (32.0, 41.0). ED leaders/administrators, providers, and nurses comprised 15%, 55%, and 29% of participants, respectively. Sites reported an ORCA context scale score of 3.7 [3.4, 4.0] (scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Comparison of scores by profession showed a significant difference in the context score among providers (3.9 [3.5, 4.0]), leaders (3.7 [3.5, 4.0]), and nurses (3.6 [3.0, 3.9]) (p = 0.048). Qualitative data indicated implementation barriers (e.g., resource limitations, patient health literacy), facilitators (e.g., GUIDED-HF is patient-centric; site and intervention congruent values, norms, and goals), and site-specific needs due to contextual factors (e.g., education needs, feedback mechanisms, champions).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Specific determinants of implementation exist in ED settings and require the refining of implementation strategies to overcome site-specific barriers and enhance facilitators.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>n/a.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"147"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-12102-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Heart failure is a major public health concern, affecting 6.7 million Americans. An estimated 16% of emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) are discharged home. Our Get with the Guidelines in Emergency Department Patients with Heart Failure (GUIDED-HF) toolkit aims to improve AHF self-care and facilitate safer transitions in care for these patients. We describe implementation barriers and facilitators, and the selection and refinement of implementation strategies, to facilitate future GUIDED-HF implementation.

Methods: A mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study was conducted in four United States EDs in two diverse healthcare systems in the Pacific West and Midwest. Data were collected using a survey and interviews with ED providers, nurses, and leaders. The survey assessed the ED context using the context scale of the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed interviews. Quantitative data were summarized using medians (interquartile ranges) or percentages (frequencies). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess differences in the healthcare system and profession. Qualitative data were analyzed and summarized using rapid qualitative analysis. Convergence of quantitative and qualitative data was used to inform specific refining of implementation strategies to the local context (e.g., who should serve as champions, how best practice alerts should be implemented).

Results: Participants were predominately white (76%) with median (IQR) age 37.0 (32.0, 41.0). ED leaders/administrators, providers, and nurses comprised 15%, 55%, and 29% of participants, respectively. Sites reported an ORCA context scale score of 3.7 [3.4, 4.0] (scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Comparison of scores by profession showed a significant difference in the context score among providers (3.9 [3.5, 4.0]), leaders (3.7 [3.5, 4.0]), and nurses (3.6 [3.0, 3.9]) (p = 0.048). Qualitative data indicated implementation barriers (e.g., resource limitations, patient health literacy), facilitators (e.g., GUIDED-HF is patient-centric; site and intervention congruent values, norms, and goals), and site-specific needs due to contextual factors (e.g., education needs, feedback mechanisms, champions).

Conclusions: Specific determinants of implementation exist in ED settings and require the refining of implementation strategies to overcome site-specific barriers and enhance facilitators.

Trial registration: n/a.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing the understanding of safety and the quality of patient care among medical and health sciences students in interprofessional climate: an interventional study. Evaluation of mobile clinics by MSF in pastoralist community in Doolo Zone, Somali region, Ethiopia. Exploring variation in the six-month review for stroke survivors: a national survey of current practice in England. Outpatient chemotherapy drug costs and expensive chemotherapy drug use in 340B and Non-340B hospitals: an observational study. A mixed-methods observational study of strategies for success in implementation science: overcoming emergency departments hurdles.
×
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