van Zelm R, Coeckelberghs E, Sermeus W, Wolthuis A, Bruyneel L, Panella M, Vanhaecht K. A mixed methods multiple case study to evaluate the implementation of a care pathway for colorectal cancer surgery using extended normalization process theory.
BMC Health Serv Res 2021;
21:11. [PMID:
33397382 PMCID:
PMC7784254 DOI:
10.1186/s12913-020-06011-w]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2020] [Accepted: 12/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Specific factors that facilitate or prevent the implementation of enhanced recovery protocols for colorectal cancer surgery have been described in previous qualitative studies. This study aims to perform a concurrent qualitative and quantitative evaluation of factors associated with successful implementation of a care pathway (CP) for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.
METHODS
This comparative mixed methods multiple case study was based on a sample of 10 hospitals in 4 European countries that implemented a specific CP and performed pre- and post-implementation measurements. In-depth post-implementation interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who were directly involved. Primary outcomes included protocol adherence and improvement rate. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and self-rated protocol adherence. The hospitals were ranked based on these quantitative findings, and those with the highest and lowest scores were included in this study. Qualitative data were summarized on a per-case basis using extended Normalization Process Theory (eNPT) as theoretical framework. The data were then combined and analyzed using joint display methodology.
RESULTS
Data from 381 patients and 30 healthcare professionals were included. Mean protocol adherence rate increased from 56 to 62% and mean LOS decreased by 2.1 days. Both measures varied greatly between hospitals. The two highest-ranking hospitals and the three lowest-ranking hospitals were included as cases. Factors which could explain the differences in pre- and post-implementation performance included the degree to which the CP was integrated into daily practice, the level of experience and support for CP methodology provided to the improvement team, the intrinsic motivation of the team, shared goals and the degree of management support, alignment of CP development and hospital strategy, and participation of relevant disciplines, most notably, physicians.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall improvement was achieved but was highly variable among the 5 hospitals evaluated. Specific factors involved in the implementation process that may be contributing to these differences were conceptualized using eNPT. Multidisciplinary teams intending to implement a CP should invest in shared goals and teamwork and focus on integration of the CP into daily processes. Support from hospital management directed specifically at quality improvement including audit may likewise facilitate the implementation process.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
NCT02965794 . US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov . Registered 4 August 2014.
Collapse