1
|
Reszel J, Daub O, Dunn SI, Cassidy CE, Hafizi K, Lightfoot M, Pervez D, Quosdorf A, Wood A, Graham ID. Planning and implementing practice changes in Ontario maternal-newborn hospital units: a secondary qualitative analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023; 23:735. [PMID: 37848826 PMCID: PMC10583424 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-06042-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 10/19/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams' approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science. METHODS We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014-2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step. RESULTS Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3-7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools. CONCLUSIONS We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica Reszel
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 200 Lees Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
- Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada.
| | - Olivia Daub
- School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University, 1201 Western Road, London, ON, N6G 1H1, Canada
| | - Sandra I Dunn
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 200 Lees Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada
| | - Christine E Cassidy
- School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, 5869 University Avenue, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada
- IWK Health Centre, 5980 University Avenue, Halifax, NS, B3K 6R8, Canada
| | - Kaamel Hafizi
- Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada
| | - Marnie Lightfoot
- Women and Children's Health Network, Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 170 Colborne St W, Orillia, ON, L3V 2Z3, Canada
| | | | - Ashley Quosdorf
- Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Allison Wood
- Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 200 Lees Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, ON, K1G 5Z3, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Reszel J, van den Hoek J, Nguyen T, Aravind G, Bayley MT, Bird ML, Edwards K, Eng JJ, Moore JL, Nelson MLA, Ploughman M, Richardson J, Salbach NM, Tang A, Graham ID. The Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner: Mixed Methods User Evaluation. JMIR Form Res 2022; 6:e37189. [PMID: 35904870 PMCID: PMC9377478 DOI: 10.2196/37189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2022] [Revised: 06/10/2022] [Accepted: 06/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Background As more people are surviving stroke, there is a growing need for services and programs that support the long-term needs of people living with the effects of stroke. Exercise has many benefits; however, most people with stroke do not have access to specialized exercise programs that meet their needs in their communities. To catalyze the implementation of these programs, our team developed the Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner, an evidence-informed implementation guide for teams planning a community-based exercise program for people with stroke. Objective This study aimed to conduct a user evaluation to elicit user perceptions of the usefulness and acceptability of the Planner to inform revisions. Methods This mixed methods study used a concurrent triangulation design. We used purposive sampling to enroll a diverse sample of end users (program managers and coordinators, rehabilitation health partners, and fitness professionals) from three main groups: those who are currently planning a program, those who intend to plan a program in the future, and those who had previously planned a program. Participants reviewed the Planner and completed a questionnaire and interviews to identify positive features, areas of improvement, value, and feasibility. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. We triangulated the data sources to identify Planner modifications. Results A total of 39 people participated in this study. Overall, the feedback was positive, highlighting the value of the Planner’s comprehensiveness, tools and templates, and real-world examples. The identified areas for improvement included clarifying the need for specific steps, refining navigation, and creating more action-oriented content. Most participants reported an increase in knowledge and confidence after reading the Planner and reported that using the resource would improve their planning approach. Conclusions We used a rigorous and user-centered process to develop and evaluate the Planner. End users indicated that it is a valuable resource and identified specific changes for improvement. The Planner was subsequently updated and is now publicly available for community planning teams to use in the planning and delivery of evidence-informed, sustainable, community-based exercise programs for people with stroke.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica Reszel
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Tram Nguyen
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Mark T Bayley
- Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- The KITE Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Marie-Louise Bird
- College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kate Edwards
- College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Janice J Eng
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Jennifer L Moore
- South Eastern Norway Regional Knowledge Translation Center, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Institute for Knowledge Translation, Carmel, IN, United States
| | - Michelle L A Nelson
- March of Dimes Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Michelle Ploughman
- Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL, Canada
| | - Julie Richardson
- School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Nancy M Salbach
- The KITE Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Ada Tang
- School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|