Planning and implementing practice changes in Ontario maternal-newborn hospital units: a secondary qualitative analysis

Author:

Reszel Jessica,Daub Olivia,Dunn Sandra I.,Cassidy Christine E.,Hafizi Kaamel,Lightfoot Marnie,Pervez Dahlia,Quosdorf Ashley,Wood Allison,Graham Ian D.

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMoving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams’ approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science.MethodsWe conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014–2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step.ResultsParticipants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3–7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools.ConclusionsWe identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

Funder

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Reference62 articles.

1. World Health Organization. Network for improving quality of care for maternal, newborn and child health. 2021. https://www.qualityofcarenetwork.org/. Accessed 26 Jul 2023.

2. Accreditation Canada, Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada, Canadian Medical Protective Association, Salus Global Corporation. Obstetrics services in Canada: advancing quality and strengthening safety. Ottawa; 2016. https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/static-assets/pdf/research-and-policy/system-and-practice-improvement/Obstetrics_Joint_Report-e.pdf. Accessed 26 Jul 2023.

3. Provincial Council for Maternal and Child Health. Perinatal & newborn health. 2022. https://www.pcmch.on.ca/reproductive-newborn-health/. Accessed 26 Jul 2023.

4. Weiss D, Dunn SI, Sprague AE, Fell DB, Grimshaw JM, Darling E, et al. Effect of a population-level performance dashboard intervention on maternal-newborn outcomes: an interrupted time series study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:425–36. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007361.

5. Squires JE, Cho-Young D, Aloisio LD, Bell R, Bornstein S, Brien SE, et al. Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2022;194:E279–96. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.211416.

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