Obstacles to implementing evidence-based practice in Belgium: a context-specific qualitative evidence synthesis including findings from different health care disciplines

Facilitating Guideline Implementation in Primary Health Care Practices

Introduction: Many patients continue to receive suboptimal services, inappropriate, unsafe, and costly care. Underutilization of research by health professionals is a common problem in the primary care setting. Although many theoretical frameworks can be used to help address such evidence-practice gaps, health care professionals may not be aware of the benefits of frameworks or of the most appropriate ones for their context and thus, may be faced with the challenge of selecting and using the most relevant one. Aim: The aim of this article was to describe the process used to adapt a knowledge translation framework to meet the local needs of health professionals working in one large primary care setting. Methods: The authors developed a 5-step approach for guideline implementation. This approach was informed by prior research and the authors’ experiences in supporting multidisciplinary teams of health care professionals during the implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines into primary care practices. To ensure that the 5-step approach was practical and suitable for the context of guideline implementation by multidisciplinary teams in primary health care, the implementation team adapted the “knowledge-to-action” framework using a multistep process. Results: The implementation approach consisted of the following 5 steps: identification, context analysis, development of implementation plan, evaluation, and sustainability. All 5 steps were described alongside details about a national low back pain project. Discussion: This article describes a collaborative, grassroots process that addressed an identified need in one complex context by adapting a knowledge translation framework to meet the local needs of health professionals working in primary care settings. Existing implementation frameworks may be too complex or abstract for use in busy clinical contexts. The 5-step approach presented in this paper resulted in practical steps that are more readily understood by health care professionals and staff on “the ground.”

Supporting Students With Electronic Health Record-Embedded Learning Aids: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Students often perceive workplace-based learning as disconnected from what they learn in medical school. Interventions that deal with this issue regularly involve feedback and/or learning aids. Feedback has frequently been encouraged in previous research, whereas the use of aids is less understood.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the added value of learning aids in making the connection and enhancing the transfer of learning between medical school and workplace-based learning.

METHODS

First-year students in postgraduate general practice training participated in a mixed-methods study. Within a quasi-experimental design, two conditions were investigated: (1) students having access to electronic health record (EHR)-embedded learning aids and feedback and (2) students only receiving feedback. Semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed according to the thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Forty-four students participated in this study. No significant difference was found between the two conditions (t₄₂=-0.511, P=.61, 95% CI -4.86 to 2.90). Nevertheless, students used the aids frequently and found them useful. Given that the aids were familiar to students and contained practice-based instructions in an easily accessible format, they were perceived as feasible to use during workplace-based learning. They also appeared to stimulate transfer of learning, self-confidence, reflection, and interaction between student and supervisor.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to EHR-embedded learning aids offers additional support during, but also before and after, patient encounters. The aids can be easily implemented into workplace-based learning.

Interventions to increase the use of electronic health information by healthcare practitioners to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is a large volume of health information available, and, if applied in clinical practice, may contribute to effective patient care. Despite an abundance of information, sub-optimal care is common. Many factors influence practitioners' use of health information, and format (electronic or other) may be one such factor.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions aimed at improving or increasing healthcare practitioners' use of electronic health information (EHI) on professional practice and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and LISA (EBSCO) up to November 2013. We contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to improve or increase the use of EHI by healthcare practitioners on professional practice and patient outcomes. We defined EHI as information accessed on a computer. We defined 'use' as logging into EHI. We considered any healthcare practitioner involved in patient care. We included randomized, non-randomized, and cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs, NRCTs, CRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITS), and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs).The comparisons were: electronic versus printed health information; EHI on different electronic devices (e.g. desktop, laptop or tablet computers, etc.; cell / mobile phones); EHI via different user interfaces; EHI provided with or without an educational or training component; and EHI compared to no other type or source of information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the included studies. We reassessed previously excluded studies following our decision to define logins to EHI as a measure of professional behavior. We reported results in natural units. When possible, we calculated and reported median effect size (odds ratio (OR), interquartile ranges (IQR)). Due to high heterogeneity across studies, meta-analysis was not feasible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs and four CRCTs involving 352 physicians, 48 residents, and 135 allied health practitioners. Overall risk of bias was low as was quality of the evidence. One comparison was supported by three studies and three comparisons were supported by single studies, but outcomes across the three studies were highly heterogeneous. We found no studies to support EHI versus no alternative. Given these factors, it was not possible to determine the relative effectiveness of interventions. All studies reported practitioner use of EHI, two reported on compliance with electronic practice guidelines, and none reported on patient outcomes.One trial (139 participants) measured guideline adherence for an electronic versus printed guideline, but reported no difference between groups (median OR 0.85, IQR 0.74 to 1.08). One small cross-over trial (10 participants) reported increased use of clinical guidelines when provided with a mobile versus stationary, desktop computer (mean use per shift: intervention group (IG) 3.6, standard deviation (SD) 1.7 vs. control group (CG) 2.0 (SD 1.9), P value = 0.033). One cross-over trial (203 participants) reported that using a customized versus a generic interface had little impact on practitioners' use of EHI (mean difference in adjusted end-of-study rate: 0.77 logins/month/user, 95% confidence interval (CI) CI 0.43 to 1.11). Three trials included education or training and reported increased use of EHI by practitioners following training.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provided no evidence that the use of EHI translates into improved clinical practice or patient outcomes, though it does suggest that when practitioners are provided with EHI and education or training, the use of EHI increases. We have defined use as the activity of logging into an EHI resource, but based on our findings use does not automatically translate to the application of EHI in practice. While using EHI may be an important component of evidence-based medicine, alone it is insufficient to improve patient care or clinical practices. For EHI to be applied in patient care, it will be necessary to understand why practitioners' are reluctant to apply EHI when treating people, and to determine the most effective way(s) to reduce this reluctance.

EBMPracticeNet: A Bilingual National Electronic Point-Of-Care Project for Retrieval of Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Information and Decision Support

BACKGROUND

In Belgium, the construction of a national electronic point-of-care information service, EBMPracticeNet, was initiated in 2011 to optimize quality of care by promoting evidence-based decision-making. The collaboration of the government, health care providers, evidence-based medicine (EBM) partners, and vendors of electronic health records (EHR) is unique to this project. All Belgian health care professionals get free access to an up-to-date database of validated Belgian and nearly 1000 international guidelines, incorporated in a portal that also provides EBM information from other sources than guidelines, including computerized clinical decision support that is integrated in the EHRs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to describe the development strategy, the overall content, and the management of EBMPracticeNet which may be of relevance to other health organizations creating national or regional electronic point-of-care information services.

METHODS

Several candidate providers of comprehensive guideline solutions were evaluated and one database was selected. Translation of the guidelines to Dutch and French was done with translation software, post-editing by translators and medical proofreading. A strategy is determined to adapt the guideline content to the Belgian context. Acceptance of the computerized clinical decision support tool has been tested and a randomized controlled trial is planned to evaluate the effect on process and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Currently, EBMPracticeNet is in "work in progress" state. Reference is made to the results of a pilot study and to further planned research including a randomized controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The collaboration of government, health care providers, EBM partners, and vendors of EHRs is unique. The potential value of the project is great. The link between all the EHRs from different vendors and a national database held on a single platform that is controlled by all EBM organizations in Belgium are the strengths of EBMPracticeNet.