Author:
Lodge Margot E,Dhesi Jugdeep,Shipway David JH,Braude Philip,Meilak Catherine,Partridge Judith,Andrew Nadine E,Srikanth Velandai,Ayton Darshini R,Moran Chris
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The international scale and spread of evidence-based perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) services has not yet been fully realised. Implementation science provides a structured approach to understanding factors that act as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of POPS services. In this study, we aimed to identify factors that influence the implementation of POPS services in the UK.
Methods
A qualitative case study at three UK health services was undertaken. The health services differed across contextual factors (population, workforce, size) and stages of POPS service implementation maturity. Semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled clinicians (perioperative medical, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy) and managers (n = 56) were conducted. Data were inductively coded, then thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
Results
Fourteen factors across all five CFIR domains were relevant to the implementation of POPS services. Key shared facilitators included stakeholders understanding the rationale of the POPS service, with support from their networks, POPS champions, and POPS clinical leads. We found substantial variation and flexibility in the way that health services responded to these shared facilitators and this was relevant to the implementation of POPS services.
Conclusions
Health services planning to implement a POPS service should use health service-specific strategies to respond flexibly to local factors that are acting as barriers or facilitators to implementation. To support implementation of a POPS service, we recommend health services prioritise understanding local networks, identifying POPS champions, and ensuring that stakeholders understand the rationale for the POPS service. Our study also provides a structure for future research to understand the factors associated with ‘unsuccessful’ implementation of a POPS service, which can inform ongoing efforts to implement evidence-based perioperative models of care for older people.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. Partridge JS, Moonesinghe SR, Lees N, Dhesi JK. Perioperative care for older people. Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac194.
2. Fowler A, Abbott T, Prowle J, Pearse R. Age of patients undergoing surgery. Br J Surg. 2019;106(8):1012–18.
3. Centre for Perioperative Care. Guideline for Perioperative Care for People Living with Frailty Undergoing Elective and Emergency Surgery. 2021. https://www.cpoc.org.uk/sites/cpoc/files/documents/2021-09/CPOC-BGS-Frailty-Guideline-2021.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2022.
4. Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. A framework for perioperative care in Australia and New Zealand. 2021. https://www.anzca.edu.au/safety-advocacy/standards-of-practice/the-perioperative-care-framework. Accessed 31 October 2022.
5. Thillainadesan J, Hilmer S, Close J, Kearney L, Naganathan V. Geriatric medicine services for older surgical patients in acute hospitals: results from a binational survey. Australas J Ageing. 2019;38(4):278–83.