The barriers and facilitators to the implementation of clinical guidance in elective orthopaedic surgery: a qualitative study protocol

Implementation Science

Graeme Currie¹  Aileen Clarke²  Amy Grove² 

[1] Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Organising Healthcare Research Network, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK;Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

关键词: Implementation;    Facilitators;    Barriers;    Comparative case study;    Evidence-based medicine;    Orthopaedic surgery;    Guidelines;   

Others  :  1219025
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-015-0273-6

 received in 2015-05-05, accepted in 2015-05-22,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Clinical guidelines in orthopaedic surgery aim to improve the efficiency, quality and outcomes of patient care by ensuring that treatment recommendations are based on the best available evidence. The simple provision of guidelines, however, does not ensure fidelity or guarantee their uptake and use in surgical practice. Research exploring the factors that affect surgeons’ use of evidence and guidelines has focused on understanding what evidence exists for current clinical decisions. This narrowed scope emphasises the technical, educational and accessibility issues but overlooks wider factors that help explain how and why guidelines are not implemented and used in surgery. It is also important to understand how we can encourage the implementation processes in practice.

By taking a social science perspective to examine orthopaedic surgery, we move beyond the narrow focus and explore how and why clinical guidelines struggle to achieve full uptake. We aim to explore guideline uptake to discover the factors that contribute to, or complicate, appropriate implementation in this field. We need to go beyond traditional views and experimental methods to examine the barriers and facilitators of implementation in real-life NHS surgical practice. These could be multifactorial, linked to individual, organisational or contextual influences, which act on the guideline implementation process.

Methods/design

We will use ethnographic methods to conduct case studies in three English NHS hospitals. Within each case, we will conduct observations, interviews and analysis of key documents to understand experiences, complex processes and decisions made and the role of clinical guidance and other sources of evidence within orthopaedic surgery. The data will be transcribed and analysed thematically. Comparisons will be made within cases and across cases.

Discussion

Guidelines are a fundamental part of clinical practice, and various factors must be considered when preparing for their successful implementation into organisations. Understanding the views and experiences of a range of surgical, clerical and managerial staff across multiple orthopaedic departments will capture the complexity and variety of factors that can influence surgical decisions. The findings of our study will identify the specific features of orthopaedic practice to help guide the development of strategies to facilitate guideline uptake in everyday surgical work.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Grove et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996; 312:71-2.
• [2]NICE 2014. About NICE. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/ Accessed on 11 June 2014.
• [3]SIGN 2014. About SIGN. http://www.sign.ac.uk/about/index.html Accessed on 11 June 2014.
• [4]Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, Younger T, Huntley J, Swann C. Evidence based public health. A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 71:1056e-1062.
• [5]Grol R, Grimshaw JM. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003; 362:1225-30.
• [6]Gagliardi A, Alhabib S. Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015; 10(1):54. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Grimshaw JM, Eccles M, Tetroe J. Implementing clinical guidelines: current evidence and future implications. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2004; 24:31-7.
• [8]Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8:1-72.
• [9]Kause J, Van Lieshout J, Klomp R, Huntink E, Aakhus E, Flottorp S et al.. Identifying determinants for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods. Implement Sci. 2014; 9:102. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Christakis DA, Rivara FP. Pediatricians’ awareness of and attitudes about four clinical practice guidelines. Pediatrics. 1998; 101:825-30.
• [11]Gabbay J, Le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004; 329:1013.
• [12]Elliot H, Popay J. How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilisation and local NHS policy making. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000; 54:461-8.
• [13]Ferlie W, Wood M, Fitzgerald L. Some limits to evidence-based medicine: a case study from elective orthopaedics. Quality Health Care. 1999; 9:99-107.
• [14]Gkeredakis E, Swan J, Powell J, Nicolini D, Scarbrough H, Roginski C et al.. Mind the gap: understanding utilisation of evidence and policy in health care management practice. J Health Organ Manag. 2011; 25:298-314.
• [15]Currie G, ElEnany N, Lockett A. Intra-professional dynamics in translational health research. The perspective of social scientists. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 114:81-8.
• [16]Lipman T. Power and influence in clinical effectiveness and evidence-based medicine. Fam Pract. 2000; 17:557-63.
• [17]Bhandari M, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, Dosanjh S, Sprague S, Guyatt GH. Challenges to the practice of evidence-based medicine during residents’ surgical training: a qualitative study using grounded theory. Acad Med. 2003; 78:1183-90.
• [18]Davies H, Nutley S, Powell A. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (project ref 11/2004/10), In Press. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hsdr/11200410.
• [19]Fairhurst K, Huby G. From trial data to practical knowledge: qualitative study of how general practitioners have accessed and used evidence about statin drugs in their management of hypercholesterolaemia. BMJ. 1998; 317:1130-4.
• [20]Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1991.
• [21]Bate PS, Robert G. Knowledge management and communities of practice in the private sector: lessons for modernizing the National Health Service in England and Wales. Public Adm. 2002; 80:643-63.
• [22]Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M. Getting evidence into clinical practice: an organisational behaviour perspective. J Health Services Res Policy. 2000; 5:96-102.
• [23]Bloor G, Dawson P. Understanding professional culture in organizational context. Org Stud. 1994; 15:275-95.
• [24]Bhandari M, Jani AK. Evidence based orthopaedics: one step closer. Ind J Orthopaedics. 2007; 45:3.
• [25]George AL, McKeown TJ. Case studies and theories of organizational decision making. Advances Inform Process Org. 1985; 2:21-58.
• [26]Berg BL, Lune H. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson, Boston; 2004.
• [27]George AL, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge MA; 2005.
• [28]Yin R. Case study research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills CA; 1984.
• [29]Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev. 1989; 14:532-50.
• [30]Pettigrew AM. Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organ Sci. 1990; 1:267-92.
• [31]Glaser BG, Holton J. Remodelling grounded theory. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2004; 5:4.
• [32]Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks CA; 2006.
• [33]Parlett M, Hamilton D. Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory programs. Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Glass G, editor. Sage, Beverly Hills CA; 1976.
• [34]Stake R. The art of case study research. Sage, London; 1995.
• [35]Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, Beverly Hill CA; 1990.
• [36]Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Clarke AE, Charmaz K. Developing grounded theory: the second generation. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek CA; 2009.
• [37]National Joint Registry. NJR hip procedures. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Healthcareproviders/Accessingthedata/StatsOnline/tabid/117/Default.aspx Accessed on 22 April 2015.
• [38]National Joint Registry. NJR ODEP ratings. http://www.njrsurgeonhospitalprofile.org.uk Accessed on 22 April 2015.
• [39]Olsen W. Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Developments in Sociology. Holborn M, editor. Causeway Press, Ormskirk; 2004.
• [40]QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. 10th edition. 2012 http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx Accessed on 03 March 2015.
• [41]Joffe H, Yardley L. Content and thematic analysis. Research methods for clinical and health psychology. Marks DF, Yardley L, editors. Sage Publications Ltd, London; 2004.
• [42]Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills CA; 1984.
• [43]NICE 2014. The NICE way. Lessons learned from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/using-nice’s-approach-to-base-policy-decisions-on-evidence-could-help-save-billions 06 June 2014
• [44]Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton S. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. NHS Health Development Agency, London; 2004.
• [45]Rosenthal R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. Appleton, New York, NY; 1966.