Collaborating with front-line healthcare professionals: the clinical and cost effectiveness of a theory based approach to the implementation of a national guideline

BMC Health Services Research

Mohammed A Mohammed²  John Wright⁴  Alison Cracknell⁵  Beverley Slater⁴  Joyce Craig⁶  Sally Moore⁴  Rebecca Lawton¹  Natalie Taylor³ 

[1]Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

[2]School of Healthcare Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, West Yorkshire, UK

[3]Centre for Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde 2109, NSW, UK

[4]Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK

[5]Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK

[6]York Health Economics Consortium Limited, Level 2, Market Square, University of York, York YO10 5NH, England

关键词: Interventions;    Barriers;    Hospitals;    Patient safety;    Theoretical domains framework;   

Others  :  1089904
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0648-4

 received in 2014-07-15, accepted in 2014-12-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Clinical guidelines are an integral part of healthcare. Whilst much progress has been made in ensuring that guidelines are well developed and disseminated, the gap between routine clinical practice and current guidelines often remains wide. A key reason for this gap is that implementation of guidelines typically requires a change in the behaviour of healthcare professionals – but the behaviour change component is often overlooked. We adopted the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach for supporting behaviour change required for the uptake of a national patient safety guideline to reduce the risk of feeding through misplaced nasogastric tubes.

Methods

The TDFI approach was used in a pre-post study in three NHS hospitals with a fourth acting as a control (with usual care and no TDFI). The target behavior identified for change was to increase the use of pH testing as the first line method for checking the position of a nasogastric tube. Repeat audits were undertaken in each hospital following intervention implementation. We used Zou’s modified Poisson regression approach with robust standard errors to estimate risk ratios for the use of pH testing. The projected return on investment (ROI) was also calculated.

Results

Following intervention implementation, the use of pH first line increased significantly across intervention hospitals [risk ratio (95% CI) ranged from 3.1 (1.14 to8.43) p < .05, to 8.14 (3.06 to21.67) p < .001] compared to the control hospital, which remained unchanged [risk ratio (CI) = .77 (.47-1.26) p = .296]. The estimated savings and costs in the first year were £2.56 million and £1.41 respectively, giving an ROI of 82%, and this was projected to increase to 270% over five years.

Conclusion

The TDFI approach improved the uptake of a patient safety guideline across three hospitals. The TDFI approach is clinically and cost effective in comparison to the usual practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Taylor et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hill J, Bullock I, Alderson P: A summary of the methods that the national clinical guideline centre uses to produce clinical guidelines for the National Institute for health and clinical excellence. Ann Intern Med 2011, 154(11):752-758.
• [2]Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, Dijkstra R, Donaldson C: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(6):1−+.
• [3]Shojania KG, Grimshaw JM: Evidence-based quality improvement: the state of the science. Health Aff 2005, 24(1):138-150.
• [4]Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T, Gold L: Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58(9):788-793.
• [5]Øvretveit JC, Shekelle PG, Dy SM, McDonald KM, Hempel S, Pronovost P, Rubenstein L, Taylor SL, Foy R, Wachter RM: How does context affect interventions to improve patient safety? An assessment of evidence from studies of five patient safety practices and proposals for research. BMJ Qual Safety 2011, 20(7):604-610.
• [6]Bosk CL, Dixon-Woods M, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ: Reality check for checklists. Lancet 2009, 374(9688):444-445.
• [7]Leistikow IP, Kalkman CJ, Bruijn H: Why patient safety is such a tough nut to crack. BMJ 2011, 343:188-190.
• [8]Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A: Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Safety Health Care 2005, 14(1):26-33.
• [9]Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M: From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol 2008, 57(4):660-680.
• [10]Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Needham DM: Translating evidence into practice: a model for large scale knowledge translation. BMJ 2008, 337:963-965.
• [11]Grol R, Wensing M: Effective Implementation: A Model. In Improving Patient Care; the Implementation of Change in Clinical Practice. Edited by Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. Elsevier, Oxford; 2005:41-58.
• [12]Grol R, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJL, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q 2007, 85(1):93-138.
• [13]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82(4):581-629.
• [14]Burgers JS, Grol RPTM, Zaat JOM, Spies TH, van der Bij AK, Mokkink HGA: Characteristics of effective clinical guidelines for general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2003, 53(486):15.
• [15]Taylor N, Lawton R, Slater B, Foy R: The demonstration of a theory based approach to the development of localised patient safety interventions. Implementation Science 2013, 8(123). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-123.
• [16]Taylor N, Parveen S, Robins V, Slater B, Lawton R: Development and initial validation of the influences on patient safety behaviours questionnaire.Implementation Science 2013, 8(81). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-81.
• [17]NPSA: Patient Safety Alert: Reducing the Harm Caused by Misplaced Nasogastric Feeding Tubes. London: NHS National Patient Safety Agency; 2011. http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/alerts/?entryid45=129640.
• [18]Abraham C, Michie S: A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol 2008, 27(3):379.
• [19]Zou G: A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004, 159(7):702-706.
• [20]NHS Institute for Innovation and Implementation: Return on Investment (ROI) calculator. Edited by Implementation NIfIa. London: NHS Institute for Innovation and Implementation; 2010. http://www.institute.nhs.uk/quality_and_service_improvement_tools/quality_and_service_improvement_tools/Return_on_Investment_(ROI)_calculator.html.
• [21]Unit cost of health and social care. [http://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2013/]
• [22]DoH: NHS Reference Costs 2012/13. Edited by DoH. London: Department of Health; 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2012-to-2013.
• [23]Eveleigh M, Law R, Pullyblank A, Bennett J: Nasogastric feeding tube placement: changing culture. Nurs Times 2011, 107(41):14-16.
• [24]Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A: Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc J 1997, 157(4):408-416.
• [25]Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Rutten G, Mokkink H: Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998, 317(7162):858-861.
• [26]Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving patient care: the implementation of change in clinical practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann Edinburgh; 2005.
• [27]Published Clinical Guidelines. London. [http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=ByType&type=2&status=3&p=off]
• [28]Lewis R, Fletcher M: Implementing a national strategy for patient safety: lessons from the National Health Service in England. Qual Safety Health Care 2005, 14(2):135-139.
• [29]Perla RJ, Provost LP, Murray SK: The run chart: a simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Qual Safety 2011, 20:46-51.
• [30]Brown C, Lilford R: Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance patient safety.BMJ 2008, 337:a2764.
• [31]Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, Franklin BD, Lilford RJ: An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design. Qual Safety Health Care 2008, 17(3):163-169.
• [32]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337(sep29_1):a1655-a1655.
• [33]Belsky J, Melhuish E, Barnes J, Leyland AH, Romaniuk H: National evaluation of sure start research team. effects of sure start local programmes on children and families: early findings from a quasi-experimental, cross-sectional study. BMJ 2006, 332:1476-1481.
• [34]Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P: Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health.BMJ 2000, 321(7262):694–696.
• [35]Hulscher MEJL, Laurant MGH, Grol RPTM: Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions. Qual Safety Health Care 2003, 12(1):40-46.