i-PARIHS Framework Research Articles

Using the Matrixed Multiple Case Study approach to identify factors affecting the uptake of IPV screening programs following the use of implementation facilitation

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent social determinant of health. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine IPV screening of women, but uptake remains variable. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated implementation facilitation (IF) to support integration of IPV screening programs into primary care clinics. An evaluation of IF efforts showed variability in IPV screening rates across sites. The follow-up study presented here used a Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS) approach to examine the multilevel factors impacting IPV screening program implementation across sites with varying levels of implementation success.MethodsThis mixed methods study is part of a larger cluster randomized stepped wedge Hybrid-II program evaluation. In the larger trial, participating sites received 6 months of IF consisting of an external facilitator from VHA’s Office of Women’s Health working closely with an internal facilitator and key site personnel. Recognizing the heterogeneity in implementation outcomes across sites, the MMCS approach was used to enable interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data within and across sites to help contextualize the primary findings from the larger study. Qualitative data collection was guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and included interviews with key informants involved in IPV screening implementation at eight sites. Quantitative data on IPV screening uptake was derived from medical records and surveys completed by key personnel at the same eight sites to understand implementation facilitation activities.ResultsFifteen factors influencing IPV screening implementation spanning all four i-PARIHS domains were identified and categorized into three distinct categories: (1) factors with enabling influence across all sites, (2) factors deemed important to implementation success, and (3) factors differentiating sites with high/medium versus low implementation success.ConclusionsUnderstanding the influencing factors across multi-level domains contributing to variable success of IPV screening implementation can inform the tailoring of IF efforts to promote spread and quality of screening. Implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care with IF should consider consistent engagement of internal facilitators with clinic staff involved in implementation, the resourcefulness of external facilitators, and appending resources to IPV screening tools to help key personnel address positive screens.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04106193. Registered on September 26, 2019.

Implementation strategies for large scale quality improvement initiatives in primary care settings: a qualitative assessment

Background and objectivesThe EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care was designed to assist primary care practices in the US in implementing evidence-based practices in cardiovascular care and building capacity for quality improvement. EvidenceNOW, NCT03054090, was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017. The goals of this study were to gain a comprehensive understanding of perspectives from research participants and research team members on the value of implementation strategies and factors that influenced the EvidenceNOW initiative in Virginia.MethodsIn 2018, we conducted 25 focus groups with clinicians and staff at participating practices, including 80 physicians, advanced practice clinicians, practice managers and other practice staff. We also conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with 22 research team members, including lead investigators, practice facilitators, physician expert consultants, and evaluators. We used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in the Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework in our qualitative data analysis and organization of themes.ResultsImplementation strategies valued by both practice representatives and research team members included the kick-off event, on-site practice facilitation, and interaction with physician expert consultants. Remote practice facilitation and web-based tools were used less frequently. Contextual factors that influence quality improvement efforts include leadership support, access to resources, previous quality improvement experience, and practice ownership type (independent compared to health system owned). Many clinicians and staff were overwhelmed by day-to-day activities and experience initiative fatigue, which hindered their ability to fully participate in the EvidenceNOW initiative.ConclusionsThis study provides details on how the practice environment plays an essential role in the implementation of evidence-based practices in primary care. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices should consider the context and environment of individual practices, with targeted implementation strategies to meet the needs of independent and health system owned practices. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices require strategies to address initiative fatigue among clinicians and practice staff. External support for building capacity for quality improvement could help primary care practices implement and sustain evidence-based practices and improve quality of care.Trial registrationThis project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017 and the identifier is NCT03054090.

Barriers and enablers to managing challenging behaviours after traumatic brain injury in the acute hospital setting: a qualitative study

BackgroundChallenging behaviours after traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the acute setting are associated with risk of harm to the patient and staff, delays in commencing rehabilitation and increased length of hospital stay. Few guidelines exist to inform practice in acute settings, and specialist services providing multi-disciplinary expertise for TBI behaviour management are predominantly based in subacute inpatient services. This study aims to investigate acute and subacute staff perspectives of barriers and enablers to effectively managing challenging behaviours after TBI in acute hospital settings.MethodsQualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 staff (17 from acute setting, 11 from subacute setting) across two sites who had experience working with patients with TBI. Data were analysed using inductive-deductive reflexive thematic analysis. Data were applied to the constructs of the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to generate themes representing barriers and enablers to managing challenging behaviours after TBI in the acute hospital setting.ResultsFour barriers and three enablers were identified. Barriers include (1) Difficulties with clinical decision making; (2) Concerns for risks to staff and patients; (3) Hospital environment; (4) Intensive resources are required. Enablers were (1) Experienced staff with practical skills; (2) Incorporating person-centred care; and (3) Supportive teams.ConclusionThese findings can inform pre-implementation planning for future improvements to TBI behaviour management in acute hospital settings. Difficulties with clinical decision making, concerns for risks of injury, the hospital environment and lack of resources are major challenges. Implementation strategies developed to address barriers will need to be trialled, with multi-disciplinary team approaches, and tailored to the acute setting.

IMP2ART: development of a multi-level programme theory integrating the COM-B model and the iPARIHS framework, to enhance implementation of supported self-management of asthma in primary care

BackgroundSupported asthma self-management, incorporating an asthma action plan and annual clinical review, has been recommended by UK/global guidelines for over three decades. However, implementation remains poor, as only around a third of individuals receive basic asthma care, according to the UKs leading respiratory charity Asthma and Lung UK. A systematic review of implementation studies recommended that a whole systems approach targeting patients, healthcare professional education, and organisations is needed to improve implementation of supported asthma self-management in primary care. The IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) is a national Hybrid-II implementation cluster randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate such an approach. This paper describes the development of the implementation strategy for IMP2ART with particular focus on the integration of multiple level theories.MethodsThe Medical Research Council design and evaluation of complex interventions framework and the Person-Based Approach to intervention development were used as guidance for stages of strategy development. Specifically, we (i) set up a multidisciplinary team (including practicing and academic clinicians, health psychologists, public health and patient colleagues), (ii) reviewed and integrated evidence and theory, (iii) developed guiding principles, (iv) developed prototype materials, and (v) conducted a pre-pilot study before final refinement.ResultsThe implementation strategy included resources for patients, team-based and individual healthcare professional education, practice audit and feedback, and an asthma review template, as well as a facilitator role accessible to primary care practices for 12 months. The synthesis of the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) and Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) frameworks led to an evolved framework bringing together important implementation and behaviour change elements which will be used as a basis for the study process evaluation.ConclusionsA description of rigorous implementation strategy development for the IMP2ART study is provided along with newly theorised integration of implementation and behaviour change science which may be of benefit to others targeting implementation in primary care.Trial registrationISRCTN15448074. Registered on 2nd December 2019.

Navigating the facilitation journey: a qualitative, longitudinal evaluation of ‘Eat Walk Engage’ novice and experienced facilitators

BackgroundThe Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) and integrated-PARIHS (i-PARIHS) frameworks position facilitation as an overarching strategy to enable implementation. In the revised i-PARIHS framework, facilitation is operationalised through a multi-level model with novice, experienced and expert facilitators working together in a network structure to build facilitation knowledge and skills along a continuum. To date, there has been limited evaluation of this facilitation model in practice, which is the aim of the study reported here.MethodsA descriptive, qualitative longitudinal study was undertaken to track a team of four novice and two experienced facilitators involved in facilitating the implementation of an intervention known as ‘Eat Walk Engage’ to improve multidisciplinary team delivery of age-friendly care principles in hospital. Over an 18-month period, repeat interviews were conducted to explore the learning, development, and evolving roles of novice facilitators and the roles of the experienced facilitators in providing support and mentoring. Interview data were analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach and findings were interpreted in collaboration with the participating facilitators.ResultsThe findings demonstrated experiential learning in both the novice and experienced facilitator groups as they enacted their roles in practice. The novice facilitators progressively transitioned to becoming more experienced facilitators and the experienced facilitators became increasingly expert, in line with the i-PARIHS concept of a facilitation journey from novice to expert. Strategies to support this development included a staggered approach to learning, regular meetings between the experienced and novice facilitators, reflective writing and informal peer support and networking. However, the roles were not without challenge and these challenges changed over time, from a more specific focus on the demands of the facilitator role to concerns about embedding and sustaining improvements in practice.ConclusionsWithin a network of peers and a mentored relationship with more experienced facilitators, individuals who are new to an implementation facilitator role can transition along a continuum to become experienced facilitators. Building implementation facilitation capability in this way takes time and requires tailored support and mentorship using a mix of structured and flexible approaches incorporating opportunities for reflection to support individual and group learning.

Implementing a Screen-Clean-Hydrate bundle of care for improving swallow screening, oral health, and hydration in acute stroke: Protocol for a Type 2 hybrid-effectiveness pre-post study.

Stroke clinical guidelines recommend care processes that optimize patient outcomes and minimize hospital-acquired complications. However, audits and surveys illustrate that recommended care is not always consistently or thoroughly implemented. This paper outlines the methods for implementing and evaluating a new bundle of care. Screen-Clean-Hydrate bundles together recommendations from the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management and supplements these with evidence-informed best practice from the literature for: swallow screening within 4 h of presentation to hospital (Screen); oral health assessment and delivery of oral care (Clean); and hydration assessment and management (Hydrate). The study is a pre-post Type 2 hybrid effectiveness/implementation design with an embedded process evaluation, which will be conducted in two acute stroke units in a capital city of Australia. The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) framework will be used to guide study design, conduct, and evaluation. Clinical effectiveness will be measured by rates of hospital-acquired complications and proxy measures of cost (length of stay, procedure costs) for 60 patient participants pre- and postimplementation. Implementation outcomes will focus on acceptability, feasibility, uptake and fidelity, and identification of barriers and enablers to implementation through staff interviews, medical record audits, and researcher field notes. Due to its design as a hybrid effectiveness/implementation study, once completed, the study will provide information on both intervention and implementation effectiveness, including details of successful and unsuccessful multidisciplinary implementation strategies. This will inform a larger multisite effectiveness/implementation trial for future upscale, leading to improved compliance with stroke guidelines and therefore stroke outcomes.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of Safewards and the alignment to the i-PARIHS framework - A qualitative systematic review.

Inpatient mental healthcare settings should offer safe environments for patients to heal and recover and for staff to provide high-quality treatment and care. However, aggressive patient behaviour, unengaged staff approaches, and the use of restrictive practices are frequently reported. The Safewards model includes ten interventions that aim to prevent conflict and containment. The model has shown promising results but at the same time often presents challenges to successful implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to review qualitative knowledge on staff experiences of barriers and enablers to the implementation of Safewards, from the perspective of implementation science and the i-PARIHS framework. A search of the Web of Science, ASSIA, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases resulted in 10 articles. A deductive framework analysis approach was used to identify barriers and enablers and the alignment to the i-PARIHS. Data most represented by the i-PARIHS were related to the following: local-level formal and informal leadership support, innovation degree of fit with existing practice and values, and recipients' values and beliefs. This indicates that if a ward or organization wants to implement Safewards and direct limited resources to only a few implementation determinants, these three may be worth considering. Data representing levels of external health system and organizational contexts were rare. In contrast, data relating to local (ward)-level contexts was highly represented which may reflect Safewards's focus on quality improvement strategies on a local rather than organizational level.

Implementing a ward-based programme to improve care for older inpatients: process evaluation of the cluster randomised CHERISH trial

BackgroundOlder inpatients are at high risk of hospital-associated complications, particularly delirium and functional decline. These can be mitigated by consistent attention to age-friendly care practices such as early mobility, adequate nutrition and hydration, and meaningful cognitive and social activities. Eat Walk Engage is a ward-based improvement programme theoretically informed by the i-PARIHS framework which significantly reduced delirium in a four-hospital cluster trial. The objective of this process evaluation was to understand how Eat Walk Engage worked across trial sites.MethodsProspective multi-method implementation evaluation on medical and surgical wards in four hospitals implementing Eat Walk Engage January 2016-May 2017. Using UK Medical Research Council guidance, this process evaluation assessed context, implementation (core components, implementation strategies and improvements) and mechanisms of impact (practice changes measured through older person interviews, structured mealtime observations and activity mapping) at each site.ResultsThe four wards had varied contextual barriers which altered dynamically with time. One ward with complex outer organisational barriers showed poorer implementation and fewer practice changes. Two experienced facilitators supported four novice site facilitators through interactive training and structured reflection as well as data management, networking and organisational influence. Novice site facilitators used many implementation strategies to facilitate 45 discrete improvements at individual, team and system level. Patient interviews (42 before and 38 after implementation) showed better communication about program goals in three sites. Observations of 283 meals before and 297 after implementation showed improvements in mealtime positioning and assistance in all sites. Activity mapping in 85 patients before and 111 patients after implementation showed improvements in cognitive and social engagement in three sites, but inconsistent changes in mobility. The improvements in mealtime care and cognitive and social engagement are plausible mediators of reduced delirium observed in the trial. The lack of consistent mobility improvements may explain why the trial did not show reduction in functional decline.ConclusionsA multi-level enabling facilitation approach supported adaptive implementation to varied contexts to support mechanisms of impact which partly achieved the programme goals. Contexts changed over time, suggesting the need for adequate time and continued facilitation to embed, enhance and sustain age-friendly practices on acute care wards and optimise outcomes.Trial registrationThe CHERISH trial was prospectively registered with the ANZCTR (http://www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12615000879561.

Study design and protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial using a practical implementation strategy as a model for hypertension-HIV integration — the MAP-IT trial

BackgroundAs people living with HIV (PLWH) experience earlier and more pronounced onset of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), advancing integrated care networks and models in low-resource-high-need settings is critical. Leveraging current health system initiatives and addressing gaps in treatment for PLWH, we report our approach using a late-stage (T4) implementation research study to test the adoption and sustainability of a proven-effective implementation strategy which has been minimally applied in low-resource settings for the integration of hypertension control into HIV treatment. We detail our protocol for the Managing Hypertension Among People Living with HIV: an Integrated Model (MAP-IT) trial, which uses a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) design to evaluate the effectiveness of practice facilitation on the adoption of a hypertension treatment program for PLWH receiving care at primary healthcare centers (PHCs) in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.DesignIn partnership with the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) and community organizations, the MAP-IT trial takes place in 30 PHCs. The i-PARiHS framework guided pre-implementation needs assessment. The RE-AIM framework will guide post-implementation activities to evaluate the effect of practice facilitation on the adoption, implementation fidelity, and sustainability of a hypertension program, as well as blood pressure (BP) control. Using a SW-CRT design, PHCs sequentially crossover from the hypertension program only (usual care) to hypertension plus practice facilitation (experimental condition). PHCs will recruit and enroll an average of 28–32 patients to reach a maximum of 960 PLWH participants with uncontrolled hypertension who will be followed longitudinally for BP outcomes.DiscussionGiven the need for integrated NCD-HIV care platforms in low-resource settings, MAP-IT will underscore the challenges and opportunities for integrating hypertension treatment into HIV care, particularly concerning adoption and sustainability. The evaluation of our integration approach will also highlight the potential impact of a health systems strengthening approach on BP control among PLWH.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT05031819). Registered on 2nd September 2021.

Interdisciplinary behavioral health provider perceptions of implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model: an i-PARIHS-guided qualitative study

BackgroundThe evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM), developed to help structure care for chronic health conditions, comprises six elements: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. As the CCM is increasingly implemented in real-world settings, there is heightened interest in understanding specific influences upon implementation. Therefore, guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, we (i) identified innovation-, recipient-, context-, and facilitation-related influences on CCM implementation and (ii) assessed the influences’ relationship to each CCM element’s implementation.MethodsUsing semi-structured interviews, we examined interdisciplinary behavioral health providers’ experiences at nine VA medical centers that implemented the CCM. We used i-PARIHS constructs as a priori codes for directed content analysis, then analyzed the data for cross-coding by CCM element and i-PARIHS construct.ResultsParticipants (31 providers) perceived the CCM innovation as enabling comprehensive care but challenging to coordinate with existing structures/procedures. As recipients, participants recounted not always having the authority to design CCM-consistent care processes. They perceived local leadership support to be indispensable to implementation success and difficult to garner when CCM implementation distracted from other organizational priorities. They found implementation facilitation helpful for keeping implementation on track. We identified key themes at the intersection of i-PARIHS constructs and core CCM elements, including (i) the CCM being an innovation that offers a formal structure to stepping down care intensity for patients to encourage their self-management, (ii) recipients accessing their multidisciplinary colleagues’ expertise for provider decision support, (iii) relationships with external services in the community (e.g., homelessness programs) being a helpful context for providing comprehensive care, and (iv) facilitators helping to redesign specific interdisciplinary team member roles.ConclusionsFuture CCM implementation would benefit from (i) facilitating strategic development of supportive maintenance plans for patients’ self-management, (ii) collocating multidisciplinary staff (on-site or virtually) to enhance provider decision support, (iii) keeping information on available community resources up to date, and (iv) making clearer the explicit CCM-consistent care processes that work roles can be designed around. This work can inform concrete tailoring of implementation efforts to focus on the more challenging CCM elements, which is crucial to better account for multiple influences that vary across diverse care settings in which the CCM is being implemented.

A facilitated social innovation: stakeholder groups using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles for perinatal health across levels of the health system in Cao Bang province, Vietnam

BackgroundUniversal coverage of evidence-based interventions for perinatal health, often part of evidence-based guidelines, could prevent most perinatal deaths, particularly if entire communities were engaged in the implementation. Social innovations may provide creative solutions to the implementation of evidence-based guidelines, but successful use of social innovations relies on the engagement of communities and health system actors. This proof-of-concept study aimed to assess whether an earlier successful social innovation for improved neonatal survival that employed regular facilitated Plan-Do-Study-Act meetings on the commune level was feasible and acceptable when implemented on multiple levels of the health system (52 health units) and resulted in actions with plausibly favourable effects on perinatal health and survival in Cao Bang province, northern Vietnam.MethodsThe Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework guided the implementation and evaluation of the Perinatal Knowledge-Into-Practice (PeriKIP) project. Data collection included facilitators’ diaries, health workers’ knowledge on perinatal care, structured observations of antenatal care, focus group discussions with facilitators, their mentors and representatives of different actors of the initiated stakeholder groups and an individual interview with the Reproductive Health Centre director. Clinical experts assessed the relevance of the identified problems and actions taken based on facilitators’ diaries. Descriptive statistics included proportions, means, and t-tests for the knowledge assessment and observations. Qualitative data were analysed by content analysis.ResultsThe social innovation resulted in the identification of about 500 relevant problems. Also, 75% of planned actions to overcome prioritised problems were undertaken, results presented and a plan for new actions to achieve the group’s goals to enhance perinatal health. The facilitators had significant roles, ensuring that the stakeholder groups were established based on principles of mutual respect. Overall, the knowledge of perinatal health and performance of antenatal care improved over the intervention period.ConclusionsThe establishment of facilitated local stakeholder groups can remedy the need for tailored interventions and grassroots involvement in perinatal health and provide a scalable structure for focused efforts to reduce preventable deaths and promote health and well-being.

Protocol for a process evaluation of a stepped wedge randomised controlled trial to reduce unnecessary hospitalisations of older people from residential aged care: the EDDIE+ study

IntroductionThe Early Detection of Deterioration in Elderly residents (EDDIE+) programme is a theory-informed, multi-component intervention aimed at upskilling and empowering nursing and personal care staff to identify and manage early...

Mobilising Implementation of i-PARIHS (Mi-PARIHS): development of a facilitation planning tool to accompany the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework

BackgroundFacilitation makes the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework a popular framework in the field of implementation science. Facilitation allows for flexible application of the i-PARIHS framework by encouraging the iterative tailoring of implementation strategies to a dynamic context. However, successfully harnessing this flexibility can be challenging to navigate, particularly for novice facilitators. Therefore, to support and promote more widespread use of the i-PARIHS framework, and to make it easier for people who are already using i-PARIHS, we have undertaken the Mi-PARIHS Project—Mobilising Implementation of i-PARIHS, focused on developing a suite of practical and pragmatic i-PARIHS resources.MethodsThrough a co-design approach drawing on end-users’ experiences, we developed the Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool, and this article reports on the final end-user feedback via an online survey.ResultsA total of 58 participants completed the online survey. The survey focused on participants’ previous experiences with i-PARIHS, their feedback on the background information provided with the Mi-PARIHS Tool, and their feedback on the tool itself (e.g. clarity, use, satisfaction, improvements). This feedback resulted in the development of a comprehensive 34-item Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool that supports i-PARIHS users in their (1) assessment of the i-PARIHS framework’s innovation, context, and recipient constructs; (2) development of a tailored facilitation plan; and (3) repeated use over time to evaluate the effectiveness of facilitation strategies.ConclusionsThe Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool makes framework-guided implementation more accessible and reliable to a wider range of systems and stakeholders, thereby contributing to more consistent implementation of evidence-based practices and other innovations. It addresses the challenge of systematically assessing core constructs of the i-PARIHS framework to develop tailored facilitation strategies. The Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool is freely available for use at the website https://www.flinders.edu.au/caring-futures-institute/Mi-PARIHS-tool.

Retracted: Implementation of Evidence in Preventing Postoperative Sore Throat of Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia Intubation Using the i-PARIHS Framework.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1155/2022/3151423.].

Factors That Affect Opioid Quality Improvement Initiatives in Primary Care: Insights from Ten Health Systems.

To improve patient safety and pain management, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (CDC Guideline). Recognizing that issuing a guideline alone is insufficient for transforming practice, CDC supported an Opioid Quality Improvement (QI) Collaborative, consisting of 10 health care systems that represented more than 120 practices across the United States. The research team identified factors related to implementation success using domains described by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) implementation science framework. Data from interviews, notes from check-in calls, and documents provided by systems were used. The researchers collected data throughout the project through interviews, meeting notes, and documents. The iPARIHS framework was used to identify factors that affected implementation related to the context, innovation (implementing recommendations from the CDC Guideline), recipient (clinicians), and facilitation (QI team). Contextual characteristics were at the clinic, health system, and broader external context, including staffing and leadership support, previous QI experience, and state laws. Characteristics of the innovation were its adaptability and challenges operationalizing the measures. Recipient characteristics included belief in the importance of the innovation but challenges engaging in the initiative. Finally, facilitation characteristics driving differential outcomes included staffing and available time of the QI team, the ability to make changes, and experience with QI. As health care systems continue to implement the CDC Guideline, these insights can advance successful implementation efforts by describing common implementation challenges and identifying strategies to prepare for and overcome them.

An Ankle Foot Orthosis Implementation To Improve Mobility In Peripheral Artery Disease

<h3>Research Objectives</h3> To explore the perceptions of wearing an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). This follows a clinical trial of the effectiveness of an AFO in improving walking distances for patients with PAD-related claudication. <h3>Design</h3> A randomized crossover trial of standard of care and an AFO for three months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted 1.5 months into the AFO intervention to understand acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality. Questionnaires were administered and claudication time recorded at baseline and after 3-month intervention. Six -month post intervention mixed methods assessments based on i-PARIHS framework were conducted. <h3>Setting</h3> Vascular surgery clinic and biomechanics research laboratory. <h3>Participants</h3> Claudication times and questionnaires were noted at baseline and 3 months for (n=22) participants. 7 subjects met the IRB post intervention criteria and participated in the study. <h3>Interventions</h3> A certified orthotist fit subjects with an AFO that was worn for three months. <h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3> Qualitative analysis of the semi-structured interviews and quantitative analysis of the surveys, Walking impairment questionnaire and Short-form 36 medical outcomes questionnaire, as well as claudication times assessed at baseline and 3 months. <h3>Results</h3> Key differences in responses were found. Patients withdrawing before 3 months had negative perceptions, comorbidities, and physical discomfort. Positive aspects of the AFO such as ease in standing and walking, as well as walking straighter and longer with less pain were reported by all participants Claudication times also showed improvement after 3 months. For surveys highest rating was seen in the complexity (4.6/5) and the cost dimension (4.3/5). The patients found the AFO and instructions easy to follow when starting the intervention. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The subset of preliminary data from the AFO intervention is beneficial towards assessing the implementation success and improvement in quality of life in patients who wore the AFO for three months. <h3>ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</h3> This research was supported by NIH grants (RO1AG034995 and RO1HD090333), VA Merit grant (I01 RX003266) and UNO GRACA 2020-2021 grant. <h3>Author(s) Disclosures</h3> None to declare.

Long-term use of an ankle-foot orthosis intervention in patients with peripheral artery disease using the integrated promoting action on research implementation in health services (i-PARIHS) framework

BackgroundPeripheral artery disease (PAD) is a cardiovascular disease that limits patients' walking ability. Persistent ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) use may increase the distance patients can walk as well as physical activity. PurposeThe purpose of the study was to determine the implementation and patients' perspectives related to the use or disuse of the AFO intervention six months post-intervention. This study was guided by a semi-structured interview and survey based on the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) constructs. DesignA convergent mixed methods design was used to evaluate participants' perceptions six months following a three-month AFO intervention. A survey and semi-structured questionnaire based on the i-PARIHS constructs were administered and analyzed. SettingVascular surgery clinic and biomechanics research laboratory. ParticipantsPatients (N = 7; male, 100%; age, 71.9 ± 0.6.7y; body mass index, 29.0 ± 0.5.5; ankle brachial index 0.50 ± 0.17) with claudication completed the study. InterventionsA certified orthotist fit participants with an AFO that was worn for 3 months. Main outcome measuresQualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews and quantitative analysis of the survey. ResultsThe highest positive ratings were seen in the dimensions of usability and cost-effectiveness. The patients found the AFO device and instructions to wear, easy when starting the intervention and there were no out-of-pocket costs. The lower scores and challenges faced with observability and relative advantage domains indicated issues related to motivation for sustained use of the AFO. ConclusionsBarriers associated with AFO function that prevent common activities and poor health seem to be the biggest issue for not wanting to wear the AFO after the 3-month intervention. Addressing patients' perceptions and challenges to wearing the AFO is essential to increasing compliance and physical activity. Future research should concentrate on understanding the compatibility of orthotic device interventions with the subject's lifestyle.Clinical Trial Registration No.: NCT02902211.

Interprofessional intensive care unit (ICU) team perspectives on physical restraint practices and minimization strategies in an adult ICU: A qualitative study of contextual influences.

Guidelines advocate for minimization of physical restraint (PR) use in intensive care units (ICU). Interprofessional team perspectives on PR practices can inform the design and implementation of successful PR minimization interventions. To identify ICU staff perspectives of contextual influences on PR practices and minimization strategies. A qualitative descriptive study in a single ICU in Toronto, Canada. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 ICU staff. A deductive content analysis of interviews was undertaken using the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Five themes were developed: risk-averse culture, leadership, practice monitoring and feedback processes, environmental factors, and facilitation. Participants described a risk-averse culture where prophylactic application of PR for intubated patients was used to prevent unplanned extubation thereby avoiding blame from colleagues. Perceived absence of leadership and interprofessional team involvement situated nurses as the primary decision-maker for restraint application and removal. Insufficient monitoring of restraint practices, lack of access to restraint alternatives, and inability to control environmental contributors to delirium and agitation further increased PR use. Recommendations as to how to minimize restraint use included a nurse facilitator to advance leadership-team collaboration, availability of restraints alternatives, and guidance on situations for applying and removing restraints. This analysis of contextual influences on PR practices and minimization using the i-PARIHS framework revealed potentially modifiable barriers to successful PR minimization, including a lack of leadership involvement, gaps in practice monitoring, and collaborative decision-making processes. A team approach to changing behaviour and culture should be considered for successful implementation and sustainability of PR minimization. The establishment of an interprofessional facilitation team that addresses risk-averse culture and promotes collaboration among ICU stakeholders will be crucial to the success of any approach to restraint minimization.

Using i-PARIHS to assess implementation of the Surgical Safety Checklist: an international qualitative study

BackgroundStrategies selected to implement the WHO’s Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) are key factors in its ability to improve patient safety. Underutilization of implementation frameworks for informing implementation processes hinders our understanding of the checklists’ varying effectiveness in different contexts. This study explored the extent to which SSC implementation practices could be assessed through the i-PARIHS framework and examined how it could support development of targeted recommendations to improve SSC implementation in high-income settings.MethodsThis qualitative study utilized interviews with surgical team members and health administrators from five high-income countries to understand the key elements necessary for successful implementation of the SSC. Using thematic analysis, we identified within and across-case themes that were mapped to the i-PARIHS framework constructs. Gaps in current implementation strategies were identified, and the utility of i-PARIHS to guide future efforts was assessed.ResultsFifty-one multi-disciplinary clinicians and health administrators completed interviews. We identified themes that impacted SSC implementation in each of the four i-PARIHS constructs and several that spanned multiple constructs. Within innovation, a disconnect between the clinical outcomes-focused evidence in the literature and interviewees’ patient-safety focus on observable results reduced the SSC’s perceived relevance. Within recipients, existing surgical team hierarchies impacted checklist engagement, but this could be addressed through a shared leadership model. Within context, organizational priorities resulting in time pressures on surgical teams were at odds with SSC patient safety goals and reduced fidelity. At a health system level, employing surgical team members through the state or health region resulted in significant challenges in enforcing checklist use in private vs public hospitals. Within its facilitation construct, i-PARIHS includes limited definitions of facilitation processes. We identified using multiple interdisciplinary champions; establishing checklist performance feedback mechanisms; and modifying checklist processes, such as implementing a full-team huddle, as facilitators of successful SSC implementation.ConclusionThe i-PARIHS framework enabled a comprehensive assessment of current implementation strategies, identifying key gaps and allowed for recommending targeted improvements. i-PARIHS could serve as a guide for planning future SSC implementation efforts, however, further clarification of facilitation processes would improve the framework’s utility.Trial registrationNo health care intervention was performed.

Health workers’ experiences of implementation of Helping Mothers Survive Bleeding after Birth training in Tanzania: a process evaluation using the i-PARIHS framework

BackgroundIn-service training, including the competency-based Helping Mothers Survive Bleeding After Birth (HMS BAB) is widely implemented to improve the quality of maternal health services. To better understand how this specific training responds to the needs of providers and fits into the existing health systems, we explored health workers’ experiences of the HMS BAB training.MethodsOur qualitative process evaluation was done as part of an effectiveness trial and included eight focus group discussions with 51 healthcare workers in the four districts which were part of the HMS BAB trial. We employed deductive content analysis informed by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) construct of context, recipients, innovation and facilitation.ResultsOverall, health workers reported positive experiences with the training content and how it was delivered. They are perceived to have improved competencies leading to improved health outcomes. Interviews proposed that peer practice coordinators require more support to sustain the weekly practices. Competing tasks within the facility in the context of limited time and human resources hindered the sustainability of weekly practices. Most health facilities had outlined the procedure for routine learning environments; however, these were not well operational.ConclusionThe HMS BAB training has great potential to improve health workers’ competencies around the time of childbirth and maternal outcomes. Challenges to successful implementation include balancing the intervention within the routine facility setting, staff motivation and workplace cultures.