Implementation of government-directed policy in the hospital setting: a modified Delphi study

Evaluating Allied Health Clinical Placement Performance: Protocol for a Modified Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

University-affiliated student-led health care services have emerged in response to the challenges faced by universities in securing quality clinical placements for health care students. Evidence of the health care benefits and challenges of student-led health care services is growing, while evidence of clinical placement performance remains variable and not generalizable. Though there have been previous attempts to develop a framework for evaluation of clinical placement performance, concerns have been raised about the applicability of these frameworks across the various placement settings. Additionally, the perspectives of all key stakeholders on the critical areas of clinical placement performance have yet to be considered.

OBJECTIVE

This study's objective is to gather information on areas of measurement related to student learning outcomes, experience of placement, and costs of placement and then develop consensus on which of those areas need to be included in a framework for evaluation of clinical placement performance within the context of student-led health care services. The aim of this paper is to outline a protocol for a modified Delphi study designed to gain consensus on what is important to measure when evaluating an allied health clinical placement.

METHODS

We will recruit up to 30 experts to a heterogeneous expert panel in a modified Delphi study. Experts will consist of those with firsthand experience either coordinating, supervising, or undertaking clinical placement. Purposive sampling will be used to ensure maximum variation in expert panel member characteristics. Experts' opinions will be sought on measuring student learning outcomes, student experience, and cost of clinical placement, and other areas of clinical placement performance that are considered important. Three rounds will be conducted to establish consensus on what is important to measure when evaluating clinical placement. Each round is anticipated to yield both quantitative data (eg, percentage of agreement) and qualitative data (eg, free-text responses). In each round, quantitative data will be analyzed descriptively and used to determine consensus, which will be defined as ≥70% agreement. Qualitative responses will be analyzed thematically and used to inform the subsequent round. Findings of each round will be presented, both consensus data and qualitative responses in each subsequent round, to inform expert panel members and to elicit further rankings on areas of measurement yet to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

Data analysis is currently underway, with a planned publication in 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified Delphi approach, supported by existing research and its ability to gain consensus through multiround expert engagement, provides an appropriate methodology to inform the development of a framework for the evaluation of clinical placement performance in allied health service.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/44020.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Interventions for Reducing Avoidable Hospital Readmission: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Avoidable hospital readmission is a major problem among health systems. Although there are effective peri-discharge interventions for reducing avoidable hospital readmission, successful implementation is challenging. This systematic review of qualitative studies aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions from providers' and service users' perspectives.

METHODS

We searched four databases for potentially eligible qualitative studies from databases' inception to March 2020, and updated literature search for studies published between January 2020 to October 2021. Barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions were identified and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs. Inductive analysis of the CFIR constructs was performed to yield thematic areas that illustrated the relationship between various facilitators and barriers, generating practical insights to key implementation issues.

RESULTS

Thirteen qualitative studies were included in this systematic review. Key issues were clustered in the CFIR constructs of Design Quality and Complexity of the intervention, strength of Network and Communication, being responsive to Patient Needs with sufficient Resource support, and External Incentives. The three thematic areas were rationality of the interventions, readiness and effort of multidisciplinary implementation teams, and influence of external stakeholders. Common barriers included (i) limited resources, (ii) poor communication among team members, (iii) incompatibility between the new intervention and existing work routine, (iv) complicated implementation process, (v) low practicality of supporting instruments, and (vi) lack of understanding about the content and effectiveness of the new interventions. Common facilitators were (i) information sharing via regular meetings on implementation issues, (ii) organizational culture that values quality and accountability, (iii) financial penalties for hospitals with high avoidable readmissions rates, (iv) external support offered via quality improvement programs and community resources, and (v) senior leadership support.

CONCLUSION

This study synthesized commonly-presenting barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions among different healthcare organizations. Findings may inform development of implementation strategies in different health systems after appropriate tailoring, based on a consensus-based formative research process.

Strategic Priorities for Implementation of Father-Inclusive Practice in Mental Health Services for Children and Families: A Delphi Expert Consensus Study

The aim of this study was to investigate expert consensus on barriers and facilitators to the organizational implementation of Father-Inclusive Practice (FIP) in child and family services to establish strategic priorities for implementation. An international panel of 56 experts in child and family service provision and father inclusion were surveyed using the Delphi technique. Three online questionnaires were used to gather opinions and measure experts’ levels of agreement in regard to factors that enable or hinder the organizational implementation of FIP. Survey design, analysis and interpretation was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Consensus was achieved for 46.4% (n = 13) statements. Eight barriers and five facilitators were identified as strategic priorities to organizational implementation of FIP. The key factors were related to the following CFIR themes: leadership engagement, access to information and knowledge, implementation climate, structural characteristics, networks and communication, client needs and resources, external policies and incentives, and reflecting and evaluating. The study findings suggest that issues related to central prioritization, top-down organizational processes and external policy context should represent priority areas for implementation. Our results prioritise methods for improving FIP by highlighting the key areas of organizational practice to be addressed by tailored implementation strategies.

Adapting community child and family health service models for rural and other diverse settings: A modified Delphi study to identify key elements

Inequity in health outcomes is pervasive, with poorer health outcomes identified in rural, regional and remote communities. An international call to action emphasises the need for service models adapted for less well-resourced settings. The aim of this study was to identify key elements of a framework for the adaptation of specialist community-based child and family health (CFH) service models for rural and other under-resourced settings. A modified Delphi study was undertaken with a 12-person expert panel in CFH including Australian and international professionals and parents from rural and remote communities. The study was informed by the WHO Framework for Strengthening Health Service Systems building blocks, the outcomes of an integrative review of literature and a Participatory Action Research study. Experts assessed 107 potential elements for service model development and rated them for importance when adapting service models for different contexts. Round 1 of the Delphi generated considerable consensus with 80 of the 107 potential elements identified as necessary for the service model adaptation framework. A further 17 elements for CFH service models were added in round 2. While multiple varied elements are important for adapting CFH service models for diverse settings, some elements had common themes. Experts highlighted the importance of community engagement and participation; utilising both data and local knowledge to develop a robust understanding of the community context; and the need for a flexible approach to funding and modes of service delivery to address barriers to implementation and access.

Indicator-activities to apply primary health care principles in national or large-scale community health worker programs in low-and middle-income countries: a Delphi exercise

INTRODUCTION

Primary Health Care (PHC) gained considerable momentum in the past four decades and led to improved health outcomes across a wide variety of settings. In low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), national or large-scale Community Health Worker Programs (CHWPs) are considered as vehicles to incorporate PHC principles into healthcare provision and are an essential aspect of the PHC approach to achieve health for all and sustainable development goals. The success of CHWPs is rooted in the application of PHC principles. However, there is evidence that shows patchy implementation of PHC principles across national CHWPs in LMICs. This may reflect the lack of information on what activities would illustrate the application of these principles in CHWPs. This study aimed to identify a set of core/indicator-activities that reflect the application of PHC principles by CHWPs in LMICs.

METHODS

A two-round modified Delphi study was undertaken with participants who have extensive experience in planning, implementation and evaluation of CHWPs. Survey design and analysis was guided by the four PHC principles namely Universal Health Coverage, Community Participation, Intersectoral Coordination and Appropriateness. Responses were collected using a secure online survey program (survey monkey). In round one, participants were asked to list 'core activities' that would reflect the application of each PHC principle and its sub-attributes and challenges to apply these principles in CHWPs. In round two, participants were asked to select whether they agree or disagree with each of the activities and challenges. Consensus was set a priori at 70% agreement of participants for each question.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants from 15 countries participated in the study. Consensus was reached on 59 activities reflecting the application of PHC principles by CHWPs. Based on participants' responses, a set of 29 indicator-activities for the four PHC principles was developed with examples for each indicator-activity.

CONCLUSION

These indicator-activities may provide guidance on how PHC principles can be implemented in CHWPs. They can be used in the development and evaluation of CHWPs, particularly in their application of PHC principles. Future research may focus on testing the utility of indicator-activities on CHWPs in LMICs.

Factors affecting expert performance in bid evaluation: An integrated approach

Experts play a crucial role in underpinning decision-making in most management situations. While recent studies have disclosed the impacts of individuals’ inherent cognition and the external environment on expert performance, these two-dimensional mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this study, we identified 14 factors that influence expert performance in a bid evaluation and applied cross-impact matrix multiplication to examine the interdependence of the factors. The results indicate that the two dimension-related factors affect each other within a person–environment system, and a poor situation perception gives rise to the deviation of expert performance. Expert performance can be improved if external supervision and expertise are strengthened through deliberate practices. The study proposes a new expert performance research tool, elucidates its mechanism in bid evaluation from a cognitive psychology perspective, and provides guidelines for its improvement in workplace contexts.

Towards Core Competencies for Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) Training: Results From a Global Mapping and Consensus-Building Process

BACKGROUND

As the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR) continues to grow, there is a recognition of the need for training in HPSR. This aspiration has translated into a multitude of teaching programmes of variable scope and quality, reflecting a lack of consensus on the skills and practices required for rigorous HPSR. The purpose of this paper is to identify an agreed set of core competencies for HPSR researchers, building on the previous work by the Health Systems Global (HSG) Thematic Working Group on Teaching & Learning.

METHODS

Our methods involved an iterative approach of four phases including a literature review, key informant interviews and group discussions with HPSR educators, and webinars with pre-post surveys capturing views among the global HPSR community. The phased discussions and consensus-building contributed to the evolution of the HPSR competency domains and competencies framework.

RESULTS

Emerging domains included understanding health systems complexity, assessing policies and programs, appraising data and evidence, ethical reasoning and practice, leading and mentoring, building partnerships, and translating and utilizing knowledge and HPSR evidence. The development of competencies and their application were often seen as a continuous process spanning evidence generation, partnering, communicating and helping to identify new critical health systems questions.

CONCLUSION

The HPSR competency set can be seen as a useful reference point in the teaching and practice of high-quality HPSR and can be adapted based on national priorities, the particularities of local contexts, and the needs of stakeholders (HPSR researchers and educators), as well as practitioners and policy-makers. Further research is needed in using the core competency set to design national training programmes, develop locally relevant benchmarks and assessment methods, and evaluate their use in different settings.

Fostering the implementation of transitional care innovations for older persons: prioritizing the influencing key factors using a modified Delphi technique

Background

Transitions in care for older persons requiring long-term care are common and often problematic. Therefore, the implementation of transitional care innovations (TCIs) aims to improve necessary or avert avoidable care transitions. Various factors were recognized as influencers to the implementation of TCIs. This study aims to gain consensus on the relative importance level and the feasibility of addressing these factors with implementation strategies from the perspectives of experts. This work is within TRANS-SENIOR, an innovative research network focusing on care transitions.

Methods

A modified Delphi study was conducted with international scientific and practice-based experts, recruited using purposive and snowballing methods, from multiple disciplinary backgrounds, including implementation science, transitional care, long-term care, and healthcare innovations. This study was built on the findings of a previously conducted scoping review, whereby 25 factors (barriers, facilitators) influencing the implementation of TCIs were selected for the first Delphi round. Two sequential rounds of anonymous online surveys using an a priori consensus level of > 70% and a final expert consultation session were performed to determine the implementation factors’: i) direction of influence, ii) importance, and iii) feasibility to address with implementation strategies. The survey design was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were collected using Qualtrics software and analyzed with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-nine experts from 10 countries participated in the study. Eleven factors were ranked as of the highest importance among those that reached consensus. Notably, organizational and process-related factors, including engagement of leadership and key stakeholders, availability of resources, sense of urgency, and relative priority, showed to be imperative for the implementation of TCIs. Nineteen factors reached consensus for feasibility of addressing them with implementation strategies; however, the majority were rated as difficult to address. Experts indicated that it was hard to rate the direction of influence for all factors.

Conclusions

Priority factors influencing the implementation of TCIs were mostly at the organizational and process levels. The feasibility to address these factors remains difficult. Alternative strategies considering the interaction between the organizational context and the outer setting holds a potential for enhancing the implementation of TCIs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02672-2.

Developing a framework for implementing Opioid Stewardship Programs in Australian Hospital Settings

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in strategies to improve patient safety with prescription opioids, collectively known as Opioid stewardship (OS). This study aimed to develop a framework to facilitate the implementation of OS in the Australian acute hospital setting.

METHODS

Using a Modified Delphi Technique, a diverse stakeholder panel (including patient representatives and multidisciplinary healthcare professionals) was selected. A survey based on the results of a literature review was sent to the panel for appraisal. In line with standard Delphi methodology, the primary outcome for each element was reaching consensus of at least 70% of the participants on the importance of its inclusion in the framework. The survey allowed the participants to suggest new items for inclusion in subsequent rounds or rephrase existing items.

RESULTS

Of the 29 participants who completed the survey, a majority (23/29) were regularly involved in providing direct patient care. Twenty-six of 27 items reached the 70% threshold for agreement for importance after the first round. The remaining item not agreed upon in the initial round was modified based on comments received and reached 100% agreement on importance at the second round. There was greater than 85% agreement on importance of 24/27 items for inclusion in a framework with 8/27 reaching a 100% level of agreement.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a framework for OS in the Australian acute hospital settings which may be used to guide health services to prioritise and plan strategies to improve opioid use. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Development and validation of a time and motion guide to assess the costs of prevention and control interventions for nosocomial infections: A Delphi method among experts

BACKGROUND

Nosocomial infections place a heavy burden on patients and healthcare providers and impact health care institutions financially. Reducing nosocomial infections requires an integrated program of prevention and control using key clinical best care practices. No instrument currently exists that measures these practices in terms of personnel time and material costs.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate an instrument that would measure nosocomial infection control and prevention best care practice costs, including estimates of human and material resources.

METHODS

An evaluation of the literature identified four practices essential for the control of pathogens: hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening and additional precaution. To reflect time, materials and products used in these practices, our team developed a time and motion guide. Iterations of the guide were assessed in a Delphi technique; content validity was established using the content validity index and reliability was assessed using Kruskall Wallis one-way ANOVA of rank test.

RESULTS

Two rounds of Delphi review were required; 88% of invited experts completed the assessment. The final version of the guide contains eight dimensions: Identification [83 items]; Personnel [5 items]; Additional Precautions [1 item]; Hand Hygiene [2 items]; Personal Protective Equipment [14 items]; Screening [4 items]; Cleaning and Disinfection of Patient Care Equipment [33 items]; and Hygiene and Sanitation [24 items]. The content validity index obtained for all dimensions was acceptable (> 80%). Experts statistically agreed on six of the eight dimensions.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This study developed and validated a new instrument based on expert opinion, the time and motion guide, for the systematic assessment of costs relating to the human and material resources used in nosocomial infection prevention and control. This guide will prove useful to measure the intensity of the application of prevention and control measures taken before, during and after outbreak periods or during pandemics such as COVID-19.

"What Bothers Me Most Is the Disparity between the Choices that People Have or Don't Have": A Qualitative Study on the Health Systems Responsiveness to Implementing the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act in Ireland

Objective: The Assisted Decision-Making (ADM) (Capacity) Act was enacted in 2015 in Ireland and will be commenced in 2021. This paper is focused on this pre-implementation stage within the acute setting and uses a health systems responsiveness framework. Methods: We conducted face-to-face interviews using a critical incident technique. We interviewed older people including those with a diagnosis of dementia (n = 8), family carers (n = 5) and health and social care professionals (HSCPs) working in the acute setting (n = 26). Results: The interviewees reflected upon a healthcare system that is currently under significant pressures. HSCPs are doing their best, but they are often halted from delivering on the will and preference of their patients. Many older people and family carers feel that they must be very assertive to have their preferences considered. All expressed concern about the strain on the healthcare system. There are significant environmental barriers that are hindering ADM practice. Conclusions: The commencement of ADM provides an opportunity to redefine the provision, practices, and priorities of healthcare in Ireland to enable improved patient-centred care. To facilitate implementation of ADM, it is therefore critical to identify and provide adequate resources and work towards solutions to ensure a seamless commencement of the legislation.