Exploring the implementation of national health and social care standards in Ireland: A qualitative descriptive study

Author:

Kelly Yvonne12ORCID,O'Rourke Niamh3,Flynn Rachel2,Hegarty Josephine1,Keyes Laura M.2

Affiliation:

1. Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex University College Cork Cork Ireland

2. Health Information and Standards Directorate Health Information and Quality Authority Cork Ireland

3. Health Information and Standards Directorate Health Information and Quality Authority Dublin 7 Ireland

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundNational health and social care standards are complex, quality improvement interventions. Standards typically describe a process and/or outcome of safe, quality, person‐centred care according to best evidence. Currently, there are 11 national standards that apply to diverse services in Ireland including residential centres, acute hospitals and rehabilitation and community inpatient healthcare services. A better understanding of contextual factors influencing implementation will inform decision‐making when selecting implementation strategies to enhance the implementation of standards.AimTo explore experiences of implementing national health and social care standards and secondly, to identify enablers and barriers to implementation with stakeholders from across multiple levels of the health system.DesignA qualitative descriptive study.MethodsWe conducted six focus groups and eight individual interviews from October to November 2021 with stakeholders at system level (n = 14), organizational level (n = 14) and individual level (n = 10). Focus groups and interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsSix themes were generated; (1) Top‐down, bottom‐up, a team approach: everybody together, we are all involved, we are all responsible, (2) Support tools: accessible tools and bite‐size material pertaining to standards will support us to implement standards, (3) Empower with knowledge: increase awareness and understanding of standards, make them relatable in practice so we can make sense of them, (4) A system‐wide malaise: we do not have the bandwidth to implement standards, (5) Follow the leader: we need a lead person at every level to inspire implementation, (6) A bi‐directional influence: we know inspections drive quality improvements but we still feel trepidation around inspection outcomes.ConclusionKey enablers identified related to teamwork, support tools, leadership and inspections. Key barriers related to workforce issues, a lack of awareness of standards and fear of inspection outcomes. Our findings can be incorporated into strategies to support implementation of standards, ultimately for the benefit of service‐users.Implications for PracticeThe enablers and barriers described in this study reflect the importance of organizational factors in the implementation of standards. Interdisciplinary teams can infer from these findings, which enablers and barriers apply to their own context. These findings can inform decision‐making when selecting strategies that can be effective in supporting the implementation of standards.Reporting MethodWe have adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines.Patient or Public ContributionNo patient or public contribution.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference52 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3