Search

Background: The uptake, adoption and integration of new medicines and treatment regimens within healthcare delivery can take a decade or more. Increasingly, implementation science (IS) research is being used to bridge this gap between the availability of new therapeutic evidence and its actual application in clinical practice. Little is known, however, about the quality of IS research in this area, including the degree to which theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are being used. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the use of TMFs in implementation research involving medicinal products. Methods: A search was conducted for English language abstracts and manuscripts describing the application of TMFs in IS studies for medicinal products. Eligible publications were those published between 1 January 1974 and 12 December 2022. All records were screened at the title and abstract stage; included full-text papers were abstracted using data extraction tables designed for the study. Study quality was appraised using the Implementation Research Development Tool. Results: The initial scoping search identified 2697 publications, of which 9 were ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies were published after 2020 and varied in their objectives, design and therapeutic area. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 50 participants, and all focused on the post-marketing phase of drug development. The TMF most frequently used was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Although most studies applied all TMF domains, TMF use was limited to instrument development and/or qualitative analysis. Quality appraisals indicated the need for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the implementation research, reporting on the cost of implementation strategies, and evaluating the unintended consequences of implementation efforts. Conclusions: We found that few IS studies involving medicinal products reported using TMFs. Those that did encompassed a wide variety of therapeutic indications and medicinal products; all were in the post-marketing phase and involved limited application of the TMFs. Researchers should consider conducting IS in earlier phases of drug development and integrating the TMFs throughout the research process. More consistent and in-depth use of TMFs may help advance research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implementation studies evaluate strategies to move evidence-based practices into routine clinical practice. Often, implementation scientists use healthcare quality measures to evaluate the integration of an evidence-based clinical practice into real-world healthcare settings. Healthcare quality measures have standardized definitions and are a method to operationalize and monitor guideline-congruent care. Implementation scientists can access existing data on healthcare quality measures through various sources (e.g. operations-calculated), or they can calculate the measures directly from healthcare claims and administrative data (i.e. researcher-calculated). Implementation scientists need a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods of obtaining healthcare quality data for designing, planning and executing an implementation study. The purpose of this paper is to describe the advantages, risks and lessons learned when using operations- versus researcher-calculated healthcare quality measures in site selection, implementation monitoring and implementation outcome evaluation. A key lesson learned was that relying solely on operations-calculated healthcare quality measures during an implementation study poses risks to site selection, accurate feedback on implementation progress to stakeholders, and the integrity of study results. A possible solution is using operations-calculated quality measures for monitoring of evidence-based practice uptake and researcher-calculated measures for site section and outcomes evaluation. This approach provides researchers greater control over the data and consistency of the measurement from site selection to outcomes evaluation while still retaining measures that are familiar and understood by key stakeholders whom implementation scientists need to engage in practice change efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health scholars have long called for preparedness to help better negotiate ethical issues that emerge during public health emergencies. In this paper we argue that the concept of ethical preparedness has much to offer other areas of health beyond pandemic emergencies, particularly in areas where rapid technological developments have the potential to transform aspects of health research and care, as well as the relationship between them. We do this by viewing the ethical decision-making process as a behaviour, and conceptualising ethical preparedness as providing a health research/care setting that can facilitate the promotion of this behaviour. We draw on an implementation science and behaviour change model, COM-B, to demonstrate that to be ethically prepared requires having the capability (ability), opportunity, and motivation (willingness) to work in an ethically prepared way.Methods: We use two case examples from our empirical research-one pandemic and one non-pandemic related-to illustrate how our conceptualisation of ethical preparedness can be applied in practice. The first case study was of the UK NHSX COVID-19 contact tracing application case study involved eight in-depth interviews with people involved with the development/governance of this application. The second case involved a complex case regarding familial communication discussed at the UK Genethics Forum. We used deductive qualitative analysis based on the COM-B model categories to analyse the transcripbed data from each case study.Results: Our analysis highlighted that being ethically prepared needs to go beyond merely equipping health professionals with skills and knowledge, or providing research governance actors with ethical principles and/or frameworks. To allow or support these different actors to utilise their skills and knowledge (or principles and frameworks), a focus on the physical and social opportunity is important, as is a better understanding the role of motivation.Conclusions: To understand ethical preparedness, we need to view the process of ethical decision-making as a behaviour. We have provided insight into the specific factors that are needed to promote this behaviour-using examples from both in the pandemic context as well as in areas of health research and medicine where there have been rapid technological developments. This offers a useful starting point for further conceptual work around the notion of being ethically prepared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maternity services have limited formalised guidance on planning new services such as midwifery group practice for vulnerable women, for example women with a history of substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco and other drugs), mental health challenges, complex social issues or other vulnerability. Continuity of care through midwifery group practice is mostly restricted to women with low-risk pregnancies and is not universally available to vulnerable women, despite evidence supporting benefits of this model of care for all women. The perception that midwifery group practice for vulnerable women is a high-risk model of care lacking in evidence may have in the past, thwarted implementation planning studies that seek to improve care for these women. We therefore aimed to identify the barriers and enablers that might impact the implementation of a midwifery group practice for vulnerable women.Methods: A qualitative context analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was conducted at a single-site tertiary health facility in Queensland, Australia. An interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from a purposeful sample of 31 people participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using manual and then Leximancer computer assisted methods. Themes were compared and mapped to the Framework.Results: Themes identified were the woman's experience, midwifery workforce capabilities, identifying "gold standard care", the interdisciplinary team and costs. Potential enablers of implementation included perceptions that the model facilitates a relationship of trust with vulnerable women, that clinical benefit outweighs cost and universal stakeholder acceptance. Potential barriers were: potential isolation of the interdisciplinary team, costs and the potential for vicarious trauma for midwives.Conclusion: There was recognition that the proposed model of care is supported by research and a view that clinical benefits will outweigh costs, however supervision and support is required for midwives to manage and limit vicarious trauma. An interdisciplinary team structure is also an essential component of the service design. Attention to these key themes, barriers and enablers will assist with identification of strategies to aid successful implementation. Australian maternity services can use our results to compare how the perceptions of local stakeholders might be similar or different to the results presented in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation research may play an important role in reducing research waste by identifying strategies that support translation of evidence into practice. Implementation of healthcare interventions is influenced by multiple factors including the organisational context, implementation strategies and features of the intervention as perceived by people delivering and receiving the intervention. Recently, concepts relating to perceived features of interventions have been gaining traction in published literature, namely, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, scalability and sustainability. These concepts may influence uptake of healthcare interventions, yet there seems to be little consensus about their nature and impact. The aim of this paper is to develop a testable conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions that includes these five concepts.Methods: A multifaceted approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions. An overview of reviews identified reviews published between January 2000 and March 2021 that focused on at least one of the five concepts in relation to a healthcare intervention. These findings informed the development of a preliminary framework of implementability of healthcare interventions which was presented to a panel of experts. A nominal group process was used to critique, refine and agree on a final framework.Results: A total of 252 publications were included in the overview of reviews. Of these, 32% were found to be feasible, 4% reported sustainable changes in practice and 9% were scaled up to other populations and/or settings. The expert panel proposed that scalability and sustainability of a healthcare intervention are dependent on its acceptability, fidelity and feasibility. Furthermore, acceptability, fidelity and feasibility require re-evaluation over time and as the intervention is developed and then implemented in different settings or with different populations. The final agreed framework of implementability provides the basis for a chronological, iterative approach to planning for wide-scale, long-term implementation of healthcare interventions.Conclusions: We recommend that researchers consider the factors acceptability, fidelity and feasibility (proposed to influence sustainability and scalability) during the preliminary phases of intervention development, evaluation and implementation, and iteratively check these factors in different settings and over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older Canadians are high users of health care services, however the health care system is not well-designed to meet the complex needs of many older adults. Older persons often look to their primary care practitioners to assess their needs and coordinate their care. The intervention seeks to improve primary care for older persons living with frailty and will be implemented in six primary care clinics in three Canadian provinces. Presently, more than 1.6 million older Canadians are living with frailty, and this is projected to increase to 2.5 million within a decade (Canadian Frailty Network, Frailty Matters, 2020). The model will include frailty screening, an online portal to expedite referrals and improve coordination with community services, and several tools and techniques to support patient and family engagement and shared decision-making. Our project is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder LJ, et al. Implement Scil, 4, 50, 2009). As others have done, we adapted the CFIR for our work. Our adapted framework combines elements of the socio-ecological model, key concepts from the CFIR, and elements from other implementation science frameworks. Nested within a broader mixed-method implementation study, the focus of this paper is to outline our guiding conceptual framework and qualitative methods protocol.Methods: We will use the adapted CFIR framework to inform the data we collect and our analytic approach. Our work is divided into three phases: (1) baseline assessment of 'usual care'; (2) tailoring and implementing a new primary care model; and (3) evaluation. In each of these phases we will engage in qualitative data collection, including clinical observations, focus groups, in-depth interviews and extensive field notes. At each site we will collect data with health care providers, key informants (e.g., executive directors), and rostered patients ≥ 70 years. We will engage in team-based analysis across multiple sites, three provinces and two languages through regular telephone conferences, a comprehensive analysis codebook, leadership from our Qualitative Working Group and a collective appreciation that "science is a team sport" (Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 471, 701-702, 2013).Discussion: Outcomes of this research may be used by other research teams who chose to adapt the CFIR framework to reflect the unique contexts of their work, and clinicians seeking to implement our model, or other models of care for frail older patients in primary care.Trial Registration: U.S. National Library of Medicine, NCT03442426 . Registered 22 February 2018- Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, American Indians (AIs) have low screening rates in the US. Many AIs receive care at Indian Health Services, Tribal, and Urban Indian (I/T/U) healthcare facilities, where published evidence regarding the implementation of CRC screening interventions is lacking. To address this gap, the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Albuquerque Area Southwest Tribal Epidemiology Center collaborated with two tribally-operated healthcare facilities in New Mexico with the goal of improving CRC screening rates among New Mexico's AI communities. Methods: Guided by the principles of Community Based Participatory Research, we engaged providers from the two tribal healthcare facilities and tribal community members through focus group (two focus groups with providers (n = 15) and four focus group and listening sessions with community members (n = 65)), to elicit perspectives on the feasibility and appropriateness of implementing The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide) recommended evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and strategies for increasing CRC screening. Within each tribal healthcare facility, we engaged a Multisector Action Team (MAT) that participated in an implementation survey to document the extent to which their healthcare facilities were implementing EBIs and strategies, and an organizational readiness survey that queried whether their healthcare facilities could implement additional strategies to improve uptake of CRC screening. Results: The Community Guide recommended EBIs and strategies that received the most support as feasible and appropriate from community members included: one-on-one education from providers, reminders, small media, and interventions that reduced structural barriers. From the providers' perspective, feasible and acceptable strategies included one-on-one education, patient and provider reminders, and provider assessment and feedback. Universally, providers mentioned the need for patient navigators who could provide culturally appropriate education about CRC and assist with transportation, and improved support for coordinating clinical follow-up after screening. The readiness survey highlighted overall readiness of the tribal facility, while the implementation survey highlighted that few strategies were being implemented. Conclusions: Findings from this study contribute to the limited literature around implementation research at tribal healthcare facilities and informed the selection of specific implementation strategies to promote the uptake of CRC screening in AI communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, has emerged as a transformative tool in healthcare, with the potential to revolutionize clinical decision-making and improve health outcomes. Generative AI, capable of generating new data such as text and images, holds promise in enhancing patient care, revolutionizing disease diagnosis and expanding treatment options. However, the utility and impact of generative AI in healthcare remain poorly understood, with concerns around ethical and medico-legal implications, integration into healthcare service delivery and workforce utilisation. Also, there is not a clear pathway to implement and integrate generative AI in healthcare delivery. Methods: This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of generative AI in healthcare, focusing on the utility of the technology in healthcare and its translational application highlighting the need for careful planning, execution and management of expectations in adopting generative AI in clinical medicine. Key considerations include factors such as data privacy, security and the irreplaceable role of clinicians' expertise. Frameworks like the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) model are considered to promote responsible integration. These frameworks allow anticipating and proactively addressing barriers to adoption, facilitating stakeholder participation and responsibly transitioning care systems to harness generative AI's potential. Results: Generative AI has the potential to transform healthcare through automated systems, enhanced clinical decision-making and democratization of expertise with diagnostic support tools providing timely, personalized suggestions. Generative AI applications across billing, diagnosis, treatment and research can also make healthcare delivery more efficient, equitable and effective. However, integration of generative AI necessitates meticulous change management and risk mitigation strategies. Technological capabilities alone cannot shift complex care ecosystems overnight; rather, structured adoption programs grounded in implementation science are imperative. Conclusions: It is strongly argued in this article that generative AI can usher in tremendous healthcare progress, if introduced responsibly. Strategic adoption based on implementation science, incremental deployment and balanced messaging around opportunities versus limitations helps promote safe, ethical generative AI integration. Extensive real-world piloting and iteration aligned to clinical priorities should drive development. With conscientious governance centred on human wellbeing over technological novelty, generative AI can enhance accessibility, affordability and quality of care. As these models continue advancing rapidly, ongoing reassessment and transparent communication around their strengths and weaknesses remain vital to restoring trust, realizing positive potential and, most importantly, improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared Decision-Making to discuss how the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening align with patient values is required by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and recommended by multiple organizations. Barriers at organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels prevent SDM from meeting quality standards in routine practice. We developed an implementation plan, using the socio-ecological model, for Shared Decision-Making for lung cancer screening for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. Because understanding the local context is critical to implementation success, we sought to proactively tailor our original implementation plan, to address barriers to achieving guideline-concordant lung cancer screening. Methods: We conducted a formative evaluation using an ethnographic approach to proactively identify barriers to Shared Decision-Making and tailor our implementation plan. Data consisted of qualitative interviews with leadership and clinicians from seven VA New England medical centers, regional meeting notes, and Shared Decision-Making scripts and documents used by providers. Tailoring was guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS). Results: We tailored the original implementation plan to address barriers we identified at the organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels. Overall, we removed two implementation strategies, added five strategies, and modified the content of two strategies. For example, at the clinician level, we learned that past personal and clinical experiences predisposed clinicians to focus on the benefits of lung cancer screening. To address this barrier, we modified the content of our original implementation strategy Make Training Dynamic to prompt providers to self-reflect about their screening beliefs and values, encouraging them to discuss both the benefits and potential harms of lung cancer screening. Conclusions: Formative evaluations can be used to proactively tailor implementation strategies to fit local contexts. We tailored our implementation plan to address unique barriers we identified, with the goal of improving implementation success. The FRAME-IS aided our team in thoughtfully addressing and modifying our original implementation plan. Others seeking to maximize the effectiveness of complex interventions may consider using a similar approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) is an evidence-based package of systems engineering tools originally designed to improve patient flow through the prevention of Mother-to-Child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) cascade. SAIA is a potentially scalable model for maximizing the benefits of universal antiretroviral therapy (ART) for mothers and their babies. SAIA-SCALE was a stepped wedge trial implemented in Manica Province, Mozambique, to evaluate SAIA's effectiveness when led by district health managers, rather than by study nurses. We present the results of a qualitative assessment of implementation determinants of the SAIA-SCALE strategy during two intensive and one maintenance phases. Methods: We used an extended case study design that embedded the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide data collection, analysis, and interpretation. From March 2019 to April 2020, we conducted in-depth individual interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with district managers, health facility maternal and child health (MCH) managers, and frontline nurses at 21 health facilities and seven districts of Manica Province (Chimoio, Báruè, Gondola, Macate, Manica, Sussundenga, and Vanduzi). Results: We included 85 participants: 50 through IDIs and 35 from three FGDs. Most study participants were women (98%), frontline nurses (49.4%), and MCH health facility managers (32.5%). An identified facilitator of successful intervention implementation (regardless of intervention phase) was related to SAIA's compatibility with organizational structures, processes, and priorities of Mozambique's health system at the district and health facility levels. Identified barriers to successful implementation included (a) inadequate health facility and road infrastructure preventing mothers from accessing MCH/PMTCT services at study health facilities and preventing nurses from dedicating time to improving service provision, and (b) challenges in managing intervention funds. Conclusions: The SAIA-SCALE qualitative evaluation suggests that the scalability of SAIA for PMTCT is enhanced by its fit within organizational structures, processes, and priorities at the primary level of healthcare delivery and health system management in Mozambique. Barriers to implementation that impact the scalability of SAIA include district-level financial management capabilities and lack of infrastructure at the health facility level. SAIA cannot be successfully scaled up to adequately address PMTCT needs without leveraging central-level resources and priorities. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03425136. Registered on 02/06/2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid-cycle feedback loops provide timely information and actionable feedback to healthcare organizations to accelerate implementation of interventions. We aimed to (1) describe a mixed-method approach for generating and delivering rapid-cycle feedback and (2) explore key lessons learned while implementing an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) across 18 pediatric surgery centers. Methods: All centers are members of the Pediatric Surgery Research Collaborative (PedSRC, www.pedsrc.org), participating in the ENhanced Recovery In CHildren Undergoing Surgery (ENRICH-US) trial. To assess implementation efforts, we conducted a mixed-method sequential explanatory study, administering surveys and follow-up interviews with each center's implementation team 6 and 12 months following implementation. Along with detailed notetaking and iterative discussion within our team, we used these data to generate and deliver a center-specific implementation report card to each center. Report cards used a traffic light approach to quickly visualize implementation status (green = excellent; yellow = needs improvement; red = needs significant improvement) and summarized strengths and opportunities at each timepoint. Results: We identified several benefits, challenges, and practical considerations for assessing implementation and using rapid-cycle feedback among pediatric surgery centers. Regarding potential benefits, this approach enabled us to quickly understand variation in implementation and corresponding needs across centers. It allowed us to efficiently provide actionable feedback to centers about implementation. Engaging consistently with center-specific implementation teams also helped facilitate partnerships between centers and the research team. Regarding potential challenges, research teams must still allocate substantial resources to provide feedback rapidly. Additionally, discussions and consensus are needed across team members about the content of center-specific feedback. Practical considerations include carefully balancing timeliness and comprehensiveness when delivering rapid-cycle feedback. In pediatric surgery, moreover, it is essential to actively engage all key stakeholders (including physicians, nurses, patients, caregivers, etc.) and adopt an iterative, reflexive approach in providing feedback. Conclusion: From a methodological perspective, we identified three key lessons: (1) using a rapid, mixed method evaluation approach is feasible in pediatric surgery and (2) can be beneficial, particularly in quickly understanding variation in implementation across centers; however, (3) there is a need to address several methodological challenges and considerations, particularly in balancing the timeliness and comprehensiveness of feedback. Trial registration: NIH National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04060303. Registered August 7, 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04060303 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Implementing and sustaining innovations in clinical practice, such as evidence-based practices, programmes, and policies, is frequently described as challenging. Facilitation as a strategy for supporting implementation requires a facilitator, i.e. an individual with a designated role to support the implementation process. A growing number of studies report that facilitation can help tackle the challenges in implementation efforts. To optimise the potential contribution of facilitation as a strategy to improve the implementation of new practices, there is a need to enhance understanding about what training and support is required for individuals in the facilitator role. The objective of this scoping review is to map how facilitators have been trained for, and supported in, the facilitator role in implementation studies in health and community care. Specifically, the review aims to examine what is reported on training and support of facilitators in terms of learning outcomes, content, dose, mode of delivery, learning activities, and qualifications of the trainers and how the facilitators perceive training and support. Methods: This scoping review will follow the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review checklist. We will include articles in which (a) facilitation is deployed as an implementation strategy, with identified facilitator roles targeting staff and managers, to support the implementation of specified innovations in health or community care, and (b) training and/or support of facilitators is reported. We will exclude articles where facilitation is directed to education or training in specific clinical procedures or if facilitation supports the implementation of general quality improvement systems. All types of peer-reviewed studies and study protocols published in English will be included. A systematic search will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (embase.com), Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL (Ebsco). Discussion: The proposed scoping review will provide a systematic mapping of the literature on the training and support of implementation facilitators and contribute useful knowledge within the field of implementation science to inform future facilitation initiatives. Systematic review registration: Registered at Open Science Framework (registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M6NPQ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) commonly presents to primary care, where inappropriate use of imaging remains common despite guideline recommendations against its routine use. Little is known about strategies to enhance intervention fidelity (i.e., whether interventions were implemented as intended) for interventions developed to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP. Objectives: We aim to inform the development of an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging among general practitioners (GPs) and chiropractors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. The study objectives are: [1] To explore perceived barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity of training of GPs and chiropractors to deliver a proposed intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP and [2] To explore perceived barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity of delivery of the proposed intervention. Methods: An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted with GPs and chiropractors in NL. The interview guide was informed by the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium fidelity checklist; data analysis was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Participant quotes were coded into TDF domains, belief statements were generated at each domain, and domains relevant to enhancing fidelity of provider training or intervention delivery were identified. Results: The study included five GPs and five chiropractors from urban and rural settings. Barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity to provider training related to seven TDF domains: [1] Beliefs about capabilities, [2] Optimism, [3] Reinforcement, [4] Memory, attention, and decision processes, [5] Environmental context and resources, [6] Emotion, and [7] Behavioural regulation. Barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity to intervention delivery related to seven TDF domains: [1] Beliefs about capabilities, [2] Optimism, [3] Goals, [4] Memory, attention, and decision processes, [5] Environmental context and resources, [6] Social influences, and [7] Behavioural regulation. Conclusion: The largest perceived barrier to attending training was time; perceived enablers were incentives and flexible training. Patient pressure, time, and established habits were perceived barriers to delivering the intervention as intended. Participants suggested enhancement strategies to improve their ability to deliver the intervention as intended, including reminders and check-ins with researchers. Most participants perceived intervention fidelity as important. These results may aid in the development of a more feasible and pragmatic intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for GPs and chiropractors in NL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Healthcare accreditation is a widely implemented tool used to enhance the quality of care and underpin quality control. However, research is sparse on the accreditation process in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore how team-based implementation activities preceding accreditation were associated with self-perceived improvements in emergency preparedness (preparedness for urgent disease and cardiac arrest) and handling of prescription renewals in Danish general practice. Methods GPs (general practitioners) completed a questionnaire exploring practice-team activities conducted to implement two specific accreditation standards and the related improvements as perceived by the GPs. The following implementation activities were selected, inspired by Normalization Process Theory: Common understanding (obtaining a common understanding of the purpose of implementing changes according to the accreditation standard), key person (assigning a key person responsible for working with the standard), and easy integration (finding it easy to integrate changes into existing working procedures). Data were analysed with logistic regression, and adjusted analyses included practice type, number of GP partners, number of staff, training site for junior GPs and administrative region. Results The total response rate was 74% (n = 920). Around 80% of the clinics reported having conducted team-based implementation activities. Almost half of the clinics (48%) reported perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness, and 30% reported perceived improvements in the handling of prescription renewals. Obtaining a common understanding was found to have a strong, significant association with perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness (OR = 5.07 (3.06--8.40)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 3.66 (2.07--6.46)). Easy integration of changes was also significantly associated with improvements in both emergency preparedness (OR = 1.88 (1.24--2.85)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 2.34 (1.44--3.79)), whereas assigning a key person was only significantly associated with improved emergency preparedness (OR = 1.95 (1.19--3.19)). Conclusion Clinical quality initiatives that involve collaboration within a practice team are more likely to cause improvements if specific team-based implementation activities are conducted. It is particularly important to facilitate a common understanding of the purpose of the initiative. Therefore, external support for quality initiatives aiming at the practice level in general practice should facilitate such team-based activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Research suggests palliative care to be translated and integrated in non-specialized palliative care services throughout the palliative care continuum across populations and settings. A need has been identified to build on the existing research literature in order to design strong knowledge translation strategies that can be evaluated in future research. The aim was to map strategies for knowledge translation of a palliative approach to care into non-specialized palliative care services for adult patients. The objectives were to explore the primary research activities, the specific type of knowledge translation strategies used, the research designs and study settings for such evaluations along with the major results thereof, and to identify major research gaps in this area. Methods: A scoping review was performed to map the volume and characteristics of research literature (project registered in PROSPERO #2018 CRD42018100663). The ten-year period 2010 to 2019 was searched in six major databases for original articles published in English in which the knowledge translation of a palliative approach for adult patients was evaluated in non-specialized palliative healthcare settings, and all type of empirical data-based research designs. We excluded non-English, non-empirical articles, non-evaluation of knowledge translations, specialized palliative care settings, and other types of publications (i.e. non-original articles). Results: Most of the 183 included articles focused on patients with cancer who were dying in hospitals and in high income countries. Only 13 articles focused on early palliative care. A palette of different strategies was used to implement palliative care in non-specialist palliative settings; no strategy was identified as outstanding. The majority of the articles had unspecified essential components of the research designs. Conclusion: Previous suggestions for utilization of implementation science for knowledge translation of a palliative approach to care into non-specialized palliative care services are confirmed, and established knowledge translation theories can strengthen the field. To advance this specific field of knowledge, meticulously detailed reporting of studies is required as related to research designs, clarifications of contextual influences and mechanisms at work. Specific systematic reviews and meta-syntheses in the field are merited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Nigeria, private for-profit health facilities present an opportunity to achieve the UNAIDS 95-95-95 HIV targets because of their reach and patronage. However, little is known about determinants of outcomes in these facilities. This study describes patient outcomes and the patient and health facility characteristics associated with these outcomes in adults receiving HIV treatment in private facilities in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Benue and Nasarawa states in north-central Nigeria. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal analysis of program data collected between 2013 and 2019 was done. Patient attributes and outcomes were compared across the two states and FCT. Incidence rates were determined for all cause exit, mortality and loss to follow up (LTFU). Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify associations between patient and facility attributes and these outcomes. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the factors associated with viral suppression among the study participants. Results: Of the 22,010 study subjects, 42.7%, 22.2% and 35.1%, respectively, were in Benue, FCT and Nasarawa. Almost a third (31.8%) had received antiretroviral treatment (ART) for less than a year at censoring. Incidence rates for all-cause exit, mortality and loss to follow up (LTFU) were 17.2 (95% CI 16.8, 17.5), 2.1 (95% CI 2.0, 2.2), and 11.2 (95% CI 10.8, 11.8) per 100 person years respectively. Males had higher risks of death (HR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.25–1.73), and LTFU (HR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.00–1.16). Age at ART start showed a dose–response association with both mortality and LTFU. Care at model facilities (OR = 2.16, p < 0.001), Zidovudine (AZT)-based regimens (OR = 2.00, p < 0.001), and lowest quartile baseline CD4 + count (OR = 2.40, p < 0.001) were associated with regimen switch. 75.6% of subjects were viral suppressed. Male gender (OR = 0.84, p = 0.025); AZT-based regimen (OR = 0.72, p < 0.001), age in the bottom quartile (OR = 0.71, p = 0.002) were associated with virally suppression. Conclusion: Private for-profit facilities are a major provider of HIV and other health services in Nigeria. With appropriate technical support and engagement, they can help accelerate efforts to achieve epidemic control of HIV in Nigeria, and contribute to achievement of UNAIDS 95-95-95 target by 2030. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In an article published in 2011, we discussed the need for a new role in health care systems, referred to as the Primary Spine Practitioner (PSP). The PSP model was proposed to help bring order to the chaotic nature of spine care. Over the past decade, several efforts have applied the concepts presented in that article. The purpose of the present article is to discuss the ongoing need for the PSP role in health care systems, present persistent barriers, report several examples of the model in action, and propose future strategies. Main body: The management of spine related disorders, defined here as various disorders related to the spine that produce axial pain, radiculopathy and other related symptoms, has received significant international attention due to the high costs and relatively poor outcomes in spine care. The PSP model seeks to bring increased efficiency, effectiveness and value. The barriers to the implementation of this model have been significant, and responses to these barriers are discussed. Several examples of PSP integration are presented, including clinic systems in primary care and hospital environments, underserved areas around the world and a program designed to reduce surgical waiting lists. Future strategies are proposed for overcoming the continuing barriers to PSP implementation in health care systems more broadly. Conclusion: Significant progress has been made toward integrating the PSP role into health care systems over the past 10 years. However, much work remains. This requires substantial effort on the part of those involved in the development and implementation of the PSP model, in addition to support from various stakeholders who will benefit from the proposed improvements in spine care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]