Background
Implementation principles | Supporting literature |
---|---|
1. The need for management approval and ongoing support | |
2. The need for commitment among members of the target group | |
3. Use of boundary spanners | |
4. Mapping of guidelines onto local problems | |
5. Adopting the perspective of the target group | |
6. Acknowledging the complexity of changing behavior in practice | |
7. A monitoring plan | [18] |
8. A flexible approach that is driven by local context | |
9. Co-production and design to combine theoretical and contextual expertise | [38] |
10. Incorporation into established structures |
Methods
Context
Implementation teams
Implementation tools
Audit tool
Influences on patient safety behaviors questionnaire
Focus group schedule
Feasibility and acceptability assessment tools
Time trend audit tool
Implementation interview schedule
Reflective log
Implementation procedures
The TDFI approach
Feasibility and acceptability procedure
Time trend audit
Exit interviews
Reflective log
Results
Target behavior
Audit information | Hospital 1 | Hospital 2 | Hospital 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Number of sets of notes audited | 49 | 43 | 44 |
First line method used to check NG tube position | |||
pH of aspirate from patient’s stomach | 18% | 11% | 14% |
Patient sent for X-ray | 49% | 76% | 40% |
Information not documented | 29% | 9% | 9% |
N/A (placed in radiology) | 4% | 4% | 37% |
Key barriers to performing the target behavior
IPSBQ data
Barrier | Mean (SD) H1 | Mean (SD) H2 | Mean (SD) H3 | Mean (SD) all hospitals |
---|---|---|---|---|
n = 99
|
n =105
|
n =23
|
n = 227
| |
Knowledge | 2.02 (0.70) | 2.33 (0.75) | 2.08 (0.76) | 2.17 (0.74)** |
Skills | 2.37 (0.79) | 2.64 (0.72) | 2.74 (0.87) | 2.53 (0.78)** |
Social and professional identity | 2.04 (0.73) | 1.96 (0.64) | 2.16 (0.79) | 2.01 (0.69) |
Beliefs about capabilities | 2.44 (0.77) | 2.55 (0.83) | 2.52 (0.97) | 2.50 (0.81) |
Beliefs about consequences | 2.35 (0.70) | 2.38 (0.70) | 2.39 (0.48) | 2.37 (0.68) |
Motivation and goals | 2.40 (0.66) | 2.40 (0.60) | 2.65 (0.69) | 2.42 (0.64) |
Cognitive processes, memory and decision making | 2.36 (0.68) | 2.47 (0.74) | 2.19 (0.67) | 2.39 (0.71) |
Environmental context and resources | 2.55 (0.85) | 2.69 (0.69) | 2.68 (0.62 | 2.63 (0.76) |
Social influences | 2.84 (0.76) | 2.89 (0.73) | 2.71 (0.75) | 2.85 (0.74) |
Emotion | 2.41 (0.65) | 2.75 (0.55) | 2.35 (0.62) | 2.56 (0.63)* |
Action Planning | 2.32 (0.66) | 2.38 (0.62) | 2.42 (0.54) | 2.36 (0.63) |
Focus group data
Hospital | IPSBQ top 4 barriers | Focus group consensus top 4 barriers |
---|---|---|
1 | Social influences | Social influences |
Environmental context and resources | Environmental context and resources | |
Beliefs about capabilities | Beliefs about capabilities | |
Emotion | Emotion | |
2 | Social influences | Social influences |
Emotion | Emotion | |
Environmental context and resources | Environmental context and resources | |
Skills | Skills | |
3 | Skills | Skills |
Social influences | Social influences | |
Environmental context and resources | Environmental context and resources | |
Motivation and goals
|
Emotion
|
TDF domain | Example of barrier | Quote representing barrier | Quote representing intervention suggestions |
---|---|---|---|
Social influences | Feeling pressured into doing an X-ray first | 'If my boss told me to do one it would be very difficult for me to, depending on which the boss was, generally you’d be like no but don’t you know that local guidelines are…they’d be like I said get a chest x-ray, you’d be like oh alright’ (Junior doctor, H1). | 'Well you’ve got to bring the consultants on board…I think it needs a big cascade…we could have it as a screen saver (Junior doctor, H2). |
'If at one point during a couple of weeks all the screen savers had something about NG tubes, a load of posters and then there was sort of a couple of meetings or something…what you want to do its just to raise awareness and people will actually think about it a lot more and that’s what you can hope for’ (Consultant, H2). | |||
'They [nurses] always justified it with 'we’d rather get an x-ray, we’re told not to feed without an x-ray.’ I pushed a couple of times, when I was very confident, when it had gone down very easily it was very acidic…but quite frequently they’d still send for an x-ray or they’d get someone else to request the x-ray, you know, they were adamant they wanted the x-rays and wanted them reported’ (Junior doctor, H2). | |||
Skills | Working with staff who lacked the correct skills or necessary training |
' What I’ve identified……is that I get newly qualified staff nurses coming through who have never been taught this as a method of checking, don't know how to check it’ (Dietician, H3). | 'The Trust should to do teachings about the use of ph paper vs x-ray, rather than just bombard staff with information’ (Junior doctor, H1). |
'Specific training should be targeted to relevant groups rather than lots of different types of mandatory training’ (Operation Department Practitioner, H1). | |||
'I think a lot of it is to do with the training, I was talking to a few junior doctors in respiratory and a lot of them haven’t even heard about the training package on the website, but they’re putting tubes down.’ (Nurse, H2). | |||
' I think the (e-learning) package would be good…If its interactive people are more likely to do it’ (Junior doctor, H2). | |||
Beliefs about capabilities | Low levels of confidence for checking the pH level | '…people just aren’t checking the aspirate and we almost need to get them to just check and then even if they are unsure, fine send for an x-ray, but if you see that those then correlate and you see that more and more often, then your confidence might increase.’ (Junior Doctor, H2). | 'Another way to bring it across would be to have a teaching event or something’ (Nurse, H2). |
'I think confidence would increase if staff knew they were learning the correct skills’ (Senior nurse, H1). | |||
Environmental context and resources | The lack of resources, such as pH paper or lack of forms for documentation, often leaves doctors with no choice but to send for an x-ray in order to make the decision to feed | 'We’re still having problems getting strips; was looking for some this morning and there weren’t any in the cupboard so I had to pinch some from another patient’ (Junior doctor, H1). | 'Can you get it in the packs? Like the IV catheter packs? You’ve got all the stuff for your aseptic technique…maybe you need a similar NG pack so people don’t forget that here’s your 20 ml syringe that you aspirate with; here’s your litmus paper…’ (H2: junior doctor). |
'I believe that some of the problems come about where to document it…so it's getting the pH and where do you document that…’ (Nurse, H3). | |||
'Someone developed these catheter packs that have all the equipment you need. Could there not be an NG tubes pack with all the necessary equipment for everyone to follow in a specific order?’ (H1, junior doctor). | |||
Emotion | Certain staff do not want to rely on the pH value and feel more comfortable if they have sent for an x-ray | 'I think the nurses are still quite anxious because it’s so big even now I think they’re still anxious about pH and they just want to know that it’s in the right place’ (Junior doctor, H1). | 'We could provide junior doctors with information about the use of x-rays and potential problems these cause’ (Junior doctor, H1). |
I think there is very much a fear isn’t there, once you can’t get that thing back it’s, you know… (Nurse, H2). | |||
'I think also the 50% of the deaths that occurred were from misinterpretation of x-rays. I think if you told F1’s that, even that on a poster, I think, you know, if you caught that out of the side of your eye as an F1…’ (Junior doctor, H2); | |||
'I would look at it as I went past if it was an x-ray…because a lot of questions that come from the requirement for x-rays are not seen by the people who interpret the x-rays so I think that (a poster with information regarding misinterpretation of X-rays) would be really good’ (Junior doctor, H2). |
Devising intervention strategies to address identified barriers
Focus group data
Step five: Intervention implementation
Key barriers | Implemented interventions | Behavior change techniques |
---|---|---|
Social influences | • Screensaver implemented with key messages targeting social influences | Credible source; Information about health consequences, and social/ environmental consequences; Prompts/cues; Social processes of encouragement, pressure, and support; Provide information about others approval |
• Awareness day/ awareness week* | ||
Emotion | • Screensaver implemented with key messages targeting emotion | Anticipated regret; Salience of consequences; Framing/reframing |
• Posters implemented with key messages targeting emotion | ||
Environmental context and resources | • New documentation released (care pathway for NG tubes) | Prompts/cues; Adding objects to the environment |
• Radiology and wards systems change initiated^ | ||
• Enteral feeding nurse employed* | ||
Skills and Beliefs about Capabilities | • Faculty, nurse, and FY1 training with practical elements** | Instruction on how to perform a behavior; Behavioral practice/rehearsal; Increasing skills; Modelling; Social processes of support; Information about health consequences; Credible source |
• E-learning package** (*with video modelling procedure) | ||
• Awareness day/week* (also covers social influences) |
Feasibility and acceptability
Time trend audit
Exit interviews
Key theme | Summary | Example quotes |
---|---|---|
Benefits | Support provided from the HIEC team | 'I guess one of the key things has been the (HIEC team) input; this takes the pressure off the clinicians…without that it wouldn’t have worked so well’ (Consultant, H2). |
The use of behavior change methods throughout the project | 'I suppose it’s the behavioral change aspect which was the driving force’ (Consultant, H3). | |
'I have had no previous experience in focus groups and that was really where we got most of the ideas for the implementation strategy; it was really useful (Junior doctor, H2). | ||
The wider impact this work has generated | 'It’s got the support of the Deputy Medical Director, it’s really meant that you can have that impact, it’s trust-wide and region-wide as well, whereas normally just a junior doctor doing an audit, it wouldn’t really have that precedence or support or anything (Junior doctor, H2). | |
Challenges | Having to generate interest and involvement across different areas of the Trust | 'Although (through the HIEC team) there’s been a resource to draw on, I do feel overall it would be better to get more hands on deck’ (Consultant, H3). |
Coordinating teams with several and diverse groups | 'One of the challenges has been co-ordinating the implementation strategies and actually working with different teams in the hospital like the illustration department, the photographers, the communication experts and the print unit, trying to get everything delivered in a timely manner (Junior doctor, H2). | |
Sustainability | Spread of information among healthcare professionals | 'I’ve also spoken at the regional audit meeting with all the foundation trainees about how being involved in a project where you’ve got frontline staff leading it but with top down support, how you can make a real difference’ (Junior doctor, H2). |
Networks of sharing between hospitals that this work has created | 'The knowledge that every other Trust is going through the same issues and wants to improve does create a bit of a network so H1, H2, and H3 are all talking about how to solve this problem’ (Nurse, H1). | |
Generated enthusiasm among healthcare professionals for improving patient safety | 'For me it’s made me see patient safety in a different aspect like from a much broader base and realising that actually as a junior doctor you really can make a huge difference’ (Junior doctor, H2). |
Reflective log
Implementation principles (the 'how’) | Behavior change steps (the 'what’) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1: Form implementation team (IT) | Step 2: Identifying the target behavior | Step 3: Identifying local barriers (LB) | Step 4: Identifying local strategies (LS) | Step 5: Implementing local strategies | Step 6: Evaluation | |
1. The need for management approval and ongoing support | Medical Directors liaised with risk management, quality improvement, frontline staff to determine focus area/gave full support | Management authorized audit to determine target behavior | Management asked to encourage completion of IPSBQ by staff groups involved in target behavior | Management asked to encourage staff to participate in focus groups (FGs) | Management sent LSs by staff in project report and asked for authorization for implementation | Management authorized for post-intervention audit to be undertaken |
2. The need for commitment among members of the target group | Recruited IT lead and multi-disciplinary group of staff; expectations clarified to ensure IT members were able to commit to fulfilling their role | IT members encouraged to lead audit to identify target behavior; this involved gaining support/assistance from wards/ departments | Attendance at FGs by staff demonstrated commitment to the improvement of practice | IT members each took responsibility for an element of LSs implementation | ||
3. Use of boundary spanners | HIEC team acted as boundary spanners by filtering external information into the organizations and linking organizational structure to environmental elements | Fed IT ward staff perceptions about potential target behaviors; IT fed this information both 'up’ and 'down’ their own communication channels; facilitated group to specify exact target behavior | Encouraged IT to distribute IPSBQs to colleagues and encourage completion; fed back findings to IT, clinical governance, junior doctor training, etc. | Facilitated IT to arrange/recruit for FGs; fed information within/between Trusts FGs to gauge LS feasibility; initiated links with Trust areas (e.g., IT; radiology, medical illustrations) for LS implementation | Generated/ facilitated links within/between clinical /non-clinical staff so they could co-produce materials/ resources/ systems for implementation of the LSs; interim report sent to senior management | Will feed results of intervention, experiences, and recommendations for sustainability to IT and senior management in final report |
4. Mapping of guidelines onto local problems | Enhanced credibility of guidelines by encouraging IT to audit current practice, and so relating them to local safety issues/ values | Worked with the IT to link key barriers from the IPSBQ to current practice and context (based on audit and discussion) | ||||
5. Adopting the perspective of the target group | Emphasized this not 'performance management’ but aimed to use a 'bottom-up’ approach | Audit data and anecdotal information led IT to make final decision about specific target behavior | Assessing perceived barriers summarized the front-line perspective about the target behavior | Front-line staff generated ideas for LSs, therefore increasing likelihood of adoption | IT members/ward staff were instrumental in the design of SLSs, and/or consulted at key development stages | |
6. Acknowledging the complexity of the changing behavior in practice | HIEC team listened to IT members to build a picture about the challenges associated with complying with the alert guidelines | Continuous assessment of audit data/staff discussion to determine main concerns about what was negatively affecting compliance | FGs enabled further understanding about barriers and thus the complexity of the procedure | FGs discussed complex matters; LSs based on experience and understanding of pertinent issues; BCTs addressed deep rooted complexities of LBs | Carefully co-designed and implemented LSs with IT so as not to undermine current staff effort and to highlight justification behind change in practice | |
7. A monitoring plan | Audit undertaken; key milestones included post-implementation audit | Post implementation audit /exit interviews underway | ||||
8. A flexible approach that is driven by local context | Explained approach aimed to understand/ address perspectives from the 'sharp end of patient care’ | Audit strategy based on understanding of wards /departments; target behavior chosen based on Trust resources (e.g., H3 set pH level at 5) | Different methods for IPSBQ data collection (e.g., on-line, paper copy); took into account IT capacity/ other forums to facilitate completion | Timing of FGs arranged to encompass competing priorities for attendees; LSs accounted for existing systems, equipment, resources, staff, etc. | Implementation of LSs aligned with 1) current Trust activities (e.g., clinician rotations, organized training, compliance deadlines, etc.), and 2) capacity of IT to design/implement | |
9. Co-production and design to combine theoretical and contextual expertise | Co-developing LSs with multi-disciplinary staff ensured intervention realistic, feasible, simple, and informed by behavior change theory | Co-implementing the SLSs with multi-disciplinary staff meant the intervention was pragmatic, relevant, and theory-based by the operational stage | ||||
10. Incorporation into established structures | SLSs aligned existing equipment, resources, systems; broadcasted practice change via range of mechanisms | Existing Trust services (e.g., medical illustrations, IT) were used to implement LSs |