Implementation of a novel vocal cord dysfunction management pathway using the consolidated framework for implementation research

Combined use of the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework with other implementation frameworks: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Appropriately and comprehensive applying implementation frameworks is one of the key challenges in implementation science resulting in increased use of multiple implementation frameworks within projects. This is particularly true for frameworks such as PARIHS/i-PARIHS. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine if and why the PARIHS/i-PARIHS framework has been applied in research with other implementation frameworks.

METHODS

We searched six databases from 2016 (the year following i-PARIHS' publication) to April 2024 and supplemented this with a citation search of the seminal i-PARIHS paper. We included studies that 1) were peer-reviewed with a protocol or empirical study design, 2) have applied the PARIHS or i-PARIHS framework for implementation planning, delivery, analysis, or evaluation and 3) also used at least one other implementation framework. Descriptive statistics were conducted to report on study characteristics and frequency for each implementation framework used with PARIHS/i-PARIHS. A qualitative, content analysis was used to analyse the answers to open-ended extraction questions.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles met criteria for inclusion and included 16 protocols and 20 empirical articles (twelve intervention and eight cross-sectional studies). Thirty-four of the studies used one additional implementation framework and two studies used two additional implementation frameworks. In total, nine implementation frameworks were applied with PARIHS/i-PARIHS, including: 1) RE-AIM, 2) CFIR, 3) NPT, 4) REP, 5) TDF, 6), DSF, 7) KTA, 8) Stetler's Model, and 9) SIF. Thirty-four reported a rationale for using PARIHS/i-PARIHS and 34 reported a rationale for using the other implementation framework. Only eleven reported a rationale for using more than one implementation framework. Only three reported strengths of combining implementation frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this review identified that implementation researchers are using PARIHS/i-PARIHS in combination with other implementation frameworks and providing little to no rationale for why. Use of multiple implementation frameworks without detailed rationales compromises our ability to evaluate mechanisms of effectiveness. Implementation researchers and practitioners need to be more explicit about their framework selection, detailing the complementary strengths of the frameworks that are being used in combination, including why using one is not sufficient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO: ID: 392147.

Evaluation of interdisciplinary care pathway implementation in older elective surgery patients

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program outlines best practices for surgical care in older adults. These recommendations have guided institutions to create workflows to better support needs specific to older surgical patients. This qualitative study explored clinician experiences to understand influences on implementation of frailty screening and an interdisciplinary care pathway in older elective colorectal surgery and neurosurgery patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Semi-structured in-person and video-based interviews were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022 with clinicians caring for patients ≥70 years on the colorectal surgery and neurosurgery services. Interviews addressed familiarity with and beliefs about the intervention, intervention alignment with routine workflow and workflow adaptations, and barriers and facilitators to performing the intervention. Interviews were analyzed using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to find themes related to ongoing implementation.

RESULTS

Thirty-two clinicians participated (56.3% female, 58.8% White). Fifteen relevant CFIR constructs were identified. Key themes to implementation success included strong participant belief in effectiveness of the intervention and its advantage over standard care; the importance of training, reference materials, and champions; and the need for institution-level investment in resources to amplify the impact of the intervention on patients and expand the capacity to address their needs.

CONCLUSION

Systematic evaluation found implementation of frailty screening and an interdisciplinary care pathway in elective colorectal surgery and neurosurgery patients to be supported by participating clinicians, yet sustainability of the intervention and further adoption across surgical services to better meet the needs of older patients would necessitate organizational resource allocation.

Risk Factors for Tube Feeding at Discharge in Infants Undergoing Neonatal Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review

Approximately 30-50% of infants undergoing neonatal surgery for congenital heart disease (CHD) cannot meet oral feeding goals by discharge and require feeding tube support at home. Feeding tubes are associated with increased readmission rates and consequent hospital, payer, and family costs, and are a burden for family caregivers. Identification of modifiable risk factors for oral feeding problems could support targeted care for at-risk infants. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to determine risk factors for tube feeding at discharge in infants undergoing neonatal surgery for CHD. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies published before 2010 were excluded. The search resulted in 607 records, of which 18 were included. Studies were primarily retrospective cohort designs and results were often inconsistent. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools. As a group, the studies exhibited substantial risk for bias. Based on the findings, infants who struggle with feeding preoperatively, experience increased nil per os duration and/or low oral feeding volume postoperatively, experience increased duration of mechanical ventilation, or have vocal cord dysfunction may be at risk for tube feeding at hospital discharge. Factors warranting further examination include cardiac physiology (e.g., aortic arch obstruction) and the relationship between neurodevelopment and oral feeding. Clinicians should use caution in assuming risk for an individual and prioritize early implementation of interventions that facilitate oral feeding development.

Vocal cord dysfunction after pediatric cardiac surgery: A prospective implementation study

Objective

To determine the incidence, outcomes, and evaluate diagnostic modalities for postoperative vocal cord dysfunction (VCD) following cardiothoracic surgery in children.

Methods

A prospective mixed-methods study using principles of implementation science was completed. All patients undergoing surgery involving the aortic arch, ductus, or ligamentum arteriosum and vascular rings from September 2019 to December 2020 were enrolled. Patients underwent speech pathology assessment, laryngeal ultrasound, and flexible direct laryngoscopy.

Results

Ninety-five patients were eligible for inclusion. The incidence of VCD ranged from 18% to 56% and varied according to procedure group. VCD occurred in 42% of neonates. Repair of hypoplastic aortic arch was associated with increased risk of VCD (57%; P = .002). There was no significant difference in duration of intubation, pediatric intensive care unit stay, or hospital stay. Forty percent children were able to achieve full oral feeding. Children with VCD were more likely to require nasogastric supplementary feeding at discharge (60% vs 36%; P = .044). Sixty-eight percent of patients demonstrated complete resolution of VCD at a median of 97 days postoperatively. Laryngeal ultrasound and speech pathology assessment combined had a sensitivity of 91% in comparison to flexible direct laryngoscopy.

Conclusions

VCD occurred in one-third and resolved in two-thirds of patients at a median of 3 months following cardiac surgery. Aortic arch repair carried the highest risk of VCD. VCD adversely influenced feeding. Forty percent of patients achieved full oral feeding before discharge. VCD did not delay intensive care unit or hospital discharge. Speech pathology assessment and laryngeal ultrasound combined was reliable for diagnosis in most patients and was more patient friendly than flexible direct laryngoscopy.

Optimizing the implementation of a multisite feasibility trial of a mind-body program in acute orthopedic trauma

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind-body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers' lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients' psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers' confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings.