Multi-level factors influence the implementation and use of complex innovations in cancer care: a multiple case study of synoptic reporting

Implementation Science

Eva Grunfeld⁵  Lois Jackson²  Joan Sargeant¹  Geoffrey A Porter⁴  Robin Urquhart³ 

[1] Continuing Professional Development, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;Division of Medical Education, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

关键词: Innovation;    Cancer;    Implementation;    Knowledge translation;    Synoptic reporting;   

Others  :  1146457
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0121-0

 received in 2013-12-17, accepted in 2014-08-28,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The implementation of innovations (i.e., new tools and practices) in healthcare organizations remains a significant challenge. The objective of this study was to examine the key interpersonal, organizational, and system level factors that influenced the implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools in three specific areas of cancer care.

Methods

Using case study methodology, we studied three cases in Nova Scotia, Canada, wherein synoptic reporting tools were implemented within clinical departments/programs. Synoptic reporting tools capture and present information about a medical or surgical procedure in a structured, checklist-like format and typically report only items critical for understanding the disease and subsequent impacts on patient care. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key informants, document analysis, nonparticipant observation, and tool use/examination. Analysis involved production of case histories, in-depth analysis of each case, and a cross-case analysis. Numerous techniques were used during the research design, data collection, and data analysis stages to increase the rigour of this study.

Results

The analysis revealed five common factors that were particularly influential to implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools across the three cases: stakeholder involvement, managing the change process (e.g., building demand, communication, training and support), champions and respected colleagues, administrative and managerial support, and innovation attributes (e.g., complexity, compatibility with interests and values). The direction of influence (facilitating or impeding) of each of these factors differed across and within cases.

Conclusions

The findings demonstrate the importance of a multi-level contextual analysis to gaining both breadth and depth to our understanding of innovation implementation and use in health care. They also provide new insights into several important issues under-reported in the literature on moving innovations into healthcare practice, including the role of middle managers in implementation efforts and the importance of attending to the interpersonal aspects of implementation.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Urquhart et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, Raby M, Ross J, Kramer S, Sawka C: Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009, 99(8):517-524.
• [2]Beattie GC, McAdam TK, Elliott S, Sloan JM, Irwin ST: Improvement in quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting with a standardized proforma - a comparative study. Colorectal Dis 2003, 5(6):558-562.
• [3]Bull AD, Biffin AH, Mella J, Radcliffe AG, Stamatakis JD, Steele RJ, Williams GT: Colorectal cancer pathology reporting: a regional audit. J Clin Pathol 1997, 50(2):138-142.
• [4]Donahoe L, Bennett S, Temple W, Hilchie-Pye A, Dabbs K, Macintosh E, Porter G: Completeness of dictated operative reports in breast cancer¿the case for synoptic reporting. J Surg Oncol 2012, 106(1):79-83.
• [5]Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ, Stuart GC: The computer synoptic operative report - a leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2004, 11(10):941-947.
• [6]Lefter LP, Walker SR, Dewhurst F, Turner RW: An audit of operative notes: facts and ways to improve. ANZ J Surg 2008, 78(9):800-802.
• [7]Verleye L, Ottevanger PB, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, van der Burg ME, Reed NS, Verheijen RH, Gaarenstroom KN, Mosgaard B, Seoane JM, van der Velden J, Lotocki R, van der Graaf W, Penninckx B, Coens C, Stuart G, Vergote I: Quality of pathology reports for advanced ovarian cancer: are we missing essential information? An audit of 479 pathology reports from the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 neoadjuvant trial. Eur J Cancer 2011, 47(1):57-64.
• [8]Branston LK, Greening S, Newcombe RG, Daoud R, Abraham JM, Wood F, Dallimore NS, Steward J, Rogers C, Williams GT: The implementation of guidelines and computerised forms improves the completeness of cancer pathology reporting. The CROPS project: a randomised controlled trial in pathology. Eur J Cancer 2002, 38(6):764-772.
• [9]Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA: The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 1998, 51(6):481-482.
• [10]Rigby K, Brown SR, Lakin G, Balsitis M, Hosie KB: The use of a proforma improves colorectal cancer pathology reporting. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1999, 81(6):401-403.
• [11]Chapuis PH, Chan C, Lin BP, Armstrong K, Armstrong B, Spigelman AD, O¿Connell D, Leong D, Dent OF: Pathology reporting of resected colorectal cancers in New South Wales in 2000. ANZ J Surg 2007, 77(11):963-969.
• [12]Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R: What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011, 135(11):1471-1475.
• [13]Wilkinson NW, Shahryarinejad A, Winston JS, Watroba N, Edge SB: Concordance with breast cancer pathology reporting practice guidelines. J Am Coll Surg 2003, 196(1):38-43.
• [14]Hammond EH, Flinner RL: Clinically relevant breast cancer reporting: using process measures to improve anatomic pathology reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997, 121(11):1171-1175.
• [15]Austin R, Thompson B, Coory M, Walpole E, Francis G, Fritschi L: Histopathology reporting of breast cancer in Queensland: the impact on the quality of reporting as a result of the introduction of recommendations. Pathology 2009, 41(4):361-365.
• [16]Chamberlain DW, Wenckebach GF, Alexander F, Fraser RS, Kolin A, Newman T: Pathological examination and the reporting of lung cancer specimens. Clin Lung Cancer 2000, 1(4):261-268.
• [17]Gill AJ, Johns AL, Eckstein R, Samra JS, Kaufman A, Chang DK, Merrett ND, Cosman PH, Smith RC, Biankin AV, Kench JG: Synoptic reporting improves histopathological assessment of pancreatic resection specimens. Pathology 2009, 41(2):161-167.
• [18]Karim RZ, van den Berg KS, Colman MH, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA: The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma. Histopathology 2008, 52(2):130-138.
• [19]Mohanty SK, Piccoli AL, Devine LJ, Patel AA, William GC, Winters SB, Becich MJ, Parwani AV: Synoptic tool for reporting of hematological and lymphoid neoplasms based on World Health Organization classification and College of American Pathologists checklist. BMC Cancer 2007, 7:144. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Temple WJ, Francis WP, Tamano E, Dabbs K, Mack LA, Fields A: Synoptic surgical reporting for breast cancer surgery: an innovation in knowledge translation. Am J Surg 2010, 199(6):770-775.
• [21]Chambers AJ, Pasieka JL, Temple WJ: Improvement in the accuracy of reporting key prognostic and anatomic findings during thyroidectomy by using a novel Web-based synoptic operative reporting system. Surgery 2009, 146(6):1090-1098.
• [22]Park J, Pillarisetty VG, Brennan MF, Jarnagin WR, D¿Angelica MI, Dematteo RP, CoitD G, Janakos M, Allen PJ: Electronic synoptic operative reporting: assessing the reliability and completeness of synoptic reports for pancreatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 2010, 211(3):308-315.
• [23]Harvey A, Zhang H, Nixon J, Brown CJ: Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for database-related research and quality control. Surgery 2007, 141(6):708-714.
• [24]Laflamme MR, Dexter PR, Graham MF, Hui SL, McDonald CJ: Efficiency, comprehensiveness and cost-effectiveness when comparing dictation and electronic templates for operative reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005, 2005:425-429.
• [25]Mack LA, Dabbs K, Temple WJ: Synoptic operative record for point of care outcomes: a leap forward in knowledge translation. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010, 36(Suppl 1):S44-S49.
• [26]Cowan DA, Sands MB, Rabizadeh SM, Amos CS, Ford C, Nussbaum R, Stein D, Liegeois NJ: Electronic templates versus dictation for the completion of Mohs micrographic surgery operative notes. Dermatol Surg 2007, 33(5):588-595.
• [27]Caines JS, Schaller GH, Iles SE, Woods ER, Barnes PJ, Johnson AJ, Jones GR, Borgaonkar JN, Rowe JA, Topp TJ, Porter GA: Ten years of breast screening in the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program, 1991¿2001. experience: use of an adaptable stereotactic device in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities. Can Assoc Radiol J 2005, 56(2):82-93.
• [28]Rayson D, Payne JI, Abdolell M, Barnes PJ, Macintosh RF, Foley T, Younis T, Burns A, Caines J: Comparison of clinical-pathologic characteristics and outcomes of true interval and screen-detected invasive breast cancer among participants of a canadian breast screening program: a nested case¿control study. Clin Breast Cancer 2011, 11(1):27-32.
• [29][http:/ / canceraustralia.gov.au/ research-data/ data/ data-set-development/ structured-pathology-reporting] webcite Cancer Australia, Australian Government: Structured pathology reporting. []
• [30][http:/ / www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/ priorities/ 2007-2012-initiatives/ cancer-guidelines-2007-2012-strateg ic-initiatives/ synoptic-surgical-reporting-2/ ] webcite Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: Synoptic Reporting (surgery). []
• [31][https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=310243] webcite Cancer Care Ontario: Pathology Reporting Project. []
• [32]Cancer Program Standards 2009. American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL; 2009.
• [33][http:/ / www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/ wp-content/ uploads/ International-Collaboration-on-Canc er-Reporting-Communique.pdf] webcite Canadian Partnership against Cancer: International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting: communique. []
• [34]Urquhart R, Grunfeld E, Porter GA: Synoptic reporting and the quality of cancer care: a review of evidence and Canadian initiatives. Oncology Exchange 2009, 8(1):28-31.
• [35]Battista RN: Innovation and diffusion of health-related technologies. A conceptual framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989, 5(2):227-248.
• [36]Denis JL, Hebert Y, Langley A, Lozeau D, Trottier LH: Explaining diffusion patterns for complex health care innovations. Health Care Manage Rev 2002, 27(3):60-73.
• [37]Fraser I: Translation research: where do we go from here? Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2004, 1(Suppl 1):S78-S83.
• [38]Litaker D, Tomolo A, Liberatore V, Stange KC, Aron D: Using complexity theory to build interventions that improve health care delivery in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2006, 21(Suppl 2):S30-S34.
• [39]Titler MG: The Evidence for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation. In Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Edited by Hughes RG. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD; 2008.
• [40]Urquhart R, Porter GA, Grunfeld E, Sargeant J: Exploring the interpersonal-, organization-, and system-level factors that influence the implementation and use of an innovation-synoptic reporting-in cancer care. Implement Sci 2012, 7:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [41]Stake R: Multiple Case Study Analysis. Guilford Press, New York, NY; 2006.
• [42]Yin RK: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2009.
• [43]Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B: Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care 1998, 7(3):149-158.
• [44]Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, Mccormack B, Seers K, Titchen A: Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci 2008, 3(1):1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, Mckinney MM, Minasian L: Determinants of implementation effectiveness: adapting a framework for complex innovations. Med Care Res Rev 2007, 64(3):279-303.
• [46]Kitson AL: The need for systems change: reflections on knowledge translation and organizational change. J Adv Nurs 2009, 65(1):217-228.
• [47]Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS: Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86(5):811-824.
• [48]Klein KJ, Sorra JS: The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manage Rev 1996, 21(4):1055-1080.
• [49]Denzin NK: The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY; 1978.
• [50]Denzin N: Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ; 2006.
• [51]Patton MQ: Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2002.
• [52]Rubin H, Rubin I: Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 1995.
• [53]Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006, 3:77-101.
• [54]Urquhart R, Sargeant J, Porter GA: Factors related to the implementation and use of an innovation in cancer surgery. Curr Oncol 2011, 18(6):271-279.
• [55]Van de Ven AH, Polley DE, Garud R, Venkataraman S: The Innovation Journey. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1999.
• [56]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.
• [57]Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York, NY; 2003.
• [58]Patton MQ: Utilization Focused Evaluation. SAGE, Saint Paul, MN; 2008.
• [59]Godin G, Belanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Healthcare professionals¿ intentions and behaviours: A systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci 2008, 3:36. BioMed Central Full Text
• [60]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 Saf Health Care 2005, 14(1):26-33.
• [61]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, 57:660-680.
• [62]Thurmond VA: The point of triangulation. J Nurs Scholarsh 2001, 33(3):253-258.
• [63]Flyvbjerg B: Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 2006, 12(2):219-245.
• [64]Harvey G, Loftus-Hills A, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Kitson A, Mccormack B, Seers K: Getting evidence into practice: the role and function of facilitation. J Adv Nurs 2002, 37(6):577-588.
• [65]Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M, Hawkins C: Interlocking interactions, the diffusion of innovations in health care. Human Relations 2002, 55(12):1429-1449.
• [66]Iles V, Sutherland K: Organizational Change: A Review for Health Care Managers, Professionals and Researchers. 2001.
• [67]Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009, 4:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [68]Satterfield JM, Spring B, Brownson RC, Mullen EJ, Newhouse RP, Walker BB, Whitlock EP: Toward a transdisciplinary model of evidence-based practice. Milbank Q 2009, 87(2):368-390.