Search

Wendy Gifford,1 Ian D Graham,2,3 Mark G Ehrhart,4 Barbara L Davies,5,6 Gregory A Aarons7 1School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada; 2Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 3School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Facility of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 4Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA; 5Nursing Best Practice Research Center, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 6Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; 7Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA Purpose: Leadership in health care is instrumental to creating a supportive organizational environment and positive staff attitudes for implementing evidence-based practices to improve patient care and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the alignment of the Ottawa Model of Implementation Leadership (O-MILe), a theoretical model for developing implementation leadership, with the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS), an empirically validated tool for measuring implementation leadership. A secondary objective is to describe the methodological process for aligning concepts of a theoretical model with an independently established measurement tool for evaluating theory-based interventions.Methods: Modified template analysis was conducted to deductively map items of the ILS onto concepts of the O-MILe. An iterative process was used in which the model and scale developers (n=5) appraised the relevance, conceptual clarity, and fit of each ILS items with the O-MILe concepts through individual feedback and group discussions until consensus was reached.Results: All 12 items of the ILS correspond to at least one O-MILe concept, demonstrating compatibility of the ILS as a measurement tool for the O-MILe theoretical constructs.Conclusion: The O-MILe provides a theoretical basis for developing implementation leadership, and the ILS is a compatible tool for measuring leadership based on the O-MILe. Used together, the O-MILe and ILS provide an evidence- and theory-based approach for developing and measuring leadership for implementing evidence-based practices in health care. Template analysis offers a convenient approach for determining the compatibility of independently developed evaluation tools to test theoretical models. Keywords: leadership, implementation, evidence-based practice, template analysis, theoretical models, leadership development, knowledge translation

Gifford W, Graham ID, Ehrhart MG, Davies BL, Aarons GA.Journal of Healthcare Leadership. 2017;9:15–23.Page 15, the author affiliation section is incorrect. The correctauthor affiliations are shown below.Wendy Gifford1,2Ian D Graham1,3,4Mark G Ehrhart5Barbara L Davies1,2Gregory A Aarons6,71School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University ofOttawa, ON, Canada; 2Nursing Best Practice Research Center,University of Ottawa, ON, Canada; 3Centre for Practice-ChangingResearch, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON,Canada; 4School of Epidemiology, Public Health and PreventiveMedicine, Facility of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,ON, Canada; 5Department of Psychology, San Diego StateUniversity, San Diego, CA, USA; 6Department of Psychiatry,University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; 7Child andAdolescent Services Research Center, San D iego, CA, USARead the original article

CLINICIANS ARE EXPOSED to numerous hypertension guidelines. However, their enthusiasm for these guidelines, and the impact of the guidelines, appears modest at best. Barriers to the successful implementation of a guideline can be identified at the level of the clinician, the patient or the practice setting; however, the shortcomings of the guidelines themselves have received little attention. In this paper, we review the hypertension guidelines that are most commonly encountered by Canadian clinicians: the “1999 Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension,” “The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure” in the United States and the “1999 World Health Organization–International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension.” The key points of these guidelines are compared and the shortcomings that may impede their ability to influence practice are discussed. The main implications for future guideline developers are outlined.

The Canadian Medical Association maintains a national online database of clinical practice guidelines developed, endorsed or reviewed by Canadian organizations within 5 years of the current date. This study was designed to identify and describe guidelines in the database that make recommendations related to the use of drug therapy, and to assess their quality using a standardized guideline appraisal instrument.Drug therapy guidelines in the database were identified with the use of search terms and hand searching. Descriptive information about the developers, endorsement by other organizations, publication status, disease and drug focus was abstracted. Each guideline was independently assessed by 3 appraisers (a physician, a pharmacist and a methodologist) with the use of the Appraisal Instrument for Clinical Guidelines. Conditions were classified according to the tenth revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.We identified 217 drug therapy guidelines produced or reviewed from 1994 to 1998. Guideline developers included national organizations (47.0%), paragovernment organizations (39.6%) and professional associations (30.9%); 31.3% of the guidelines were published, and 10.6% stated drug company sponsorship. The most common conditions addressed by the guidelines were infections and parasitic diseases (39.6%), neoplasms (11.5%) and diseases of the circulatory system (11.5%). Drugs most commonly cited were anti-infective agents (42.9%), antiviral agents (15.2%) and cardiovascular drugs (16.1%). Eleven organizations produced 176 (81.1%) of the guidelines. In all, 14.7% of the guidelines met half or more of the 20 items assessing rigour of guideline development on the appraisal instrument (mean quality score 30.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 27.5%-32.6%]), 61.8% met half or more of the 12 items assessing guideline context and content (mean score 57.0% [95% CI 54.6%-59.3%]), and none met half or more of the 5 items assessing guideline application (mean score 5.6% [95% CI 4.7%-6.5%]). Overall, 64.6% of the guidelines were recommended with modification by at least 2 of the 3 appraisers, 9.2% were recommended without change, and 26.3% were not recommended. The quality of the guidelines assessed varied significantly by developer, publication status and drug company sponsorship. No substantial improvement in guideline quality was observed over the 5-year study period.Developers of Canadian drug therapy guidelines are producing guidelines that are often perceived to be clinically useful to physicians and pharmacists, although the methods (or the description of the methods) by which they are developed need to be more rigorous and thorough.