Abstract

BackgroundImplementation effectiveness models have identified important factors that can promote the successful implementation of an innovation; however, these models have been examined within contexts where innovations are adopted voluntarily and often ignore the socio-political and environmental context. In the field of occupational health and safety, there are circumstances where organizations must adopt innovations to comply with a regulatory standard. Examining how the external environment can facilitate or challenge an organization’s change process may add to our understanding of implementation effectiveness. The objective of this study is to describe implementation facilitators and barriers in the context of a regulation designed to promote the uptake of safer engineered medical devices in healthcare.MethodsThe proposed study will focus on Ontario’s safer needle regulation (2007) which requires healthcare organizations to transition to the use of safer engineered medical devices for the prevention of needlestick injuries. A collective case study design will be used to learn from the experiences of three acute care hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada. Interviews with management and front-line healthcare workers and analysis of supporting documents will be used to describe the implementation experience and examine issues associated with the integration of these devices. The data collection and analysis process will be influenced by a conceptual framework that draws from implementation science and the occupational health and safety literature.DiscussionThe focus of this study in addition to the methodology creates a unique opportunity to contribute to the field of implementation science. First, the study will explore implementation experiences under circumstances where regulatory pressures are influencing the organization's change process. Second, the timing of this study provides an opportunity to focus on issues that arise during later stages of implementation, a phase during the implementation cycle that has been understudied. This study also provides the opportunity to examine the relevance and utility of current implementation science models in the field of occupational health where the adoption of an innovation is meant to enhance the health and safety of workers. Previous work has tended to focus almost exclusively on innovations that are designed to enhance an organization’s productivity or competitive advantage.

Highlights

  • Implementation effectiveness models have identified important factors that can promote the successful implementation of an innovation; these models have been examined within contexts where innovations are adopted voluntarily and often ignore the socio-political and environmental context

  • Acute care hospitals were the first healthcare setting to be targeted by Ontario’s safer needle regulation; they have had a longer period of time to comply with the regulatory requirements. This provides an opportunity to focus on issues that arise during later stages of implementation, a period during the implementation cycle that has been understudied [24]

  • The decision to focus on Ontario’s safer needle regulation evolved from several stakeholder discussions with representatives who had a role in the initiation, design, implementation, and enforcement of the regulation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Implementation effectiveness models have identified important factors that can promote the successful implementation of an innovation; these models have been examined within contexts where innovations are adopted voluntarily and often ignore the socio-political and environmental context. The objective of this study is to describe implementation facilitators and barriers in the context of a regulation designed to promote the uptake of safer engineered medical devices in healthcare. Safety-engineered medical devices (SEMD) are widely recommended for the prevention of both needlestick and other sharp-related injuries in healthcare workplaces. The process of being tested and receiving post-exposure treatment has been found to have psychological impacts on healthcare workers including generalized anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder [2]. These injuries can be costly with estimates for a single injury ranging from $65 to as high as $4,800 (2012 US$) for post-exposure treatment and testing [3]. The adoption of SEMDs by healthcare organizations was slow initially [4] primarily due to the fact that the cost of SEMDs compared to conventional devices can be 25-80% higher [5]

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.