Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: "Implementation science," the scientific study of methods translating research findings into practical, useful outcomes, is contested and complex, with unpredictable use of results from routine clinical practice and different levels of continuing assessment of implementable interventions. The authors aim to reveal how implementation science is presented and understood in health services research contexts and clarify the foundational concepts: diffusion, dissemination, implementation, adoption, and sustainability, to progress knowledge in the field. ⋯ Researchers might benefit from a return to first principles in implementation science, whereby applications that result from research endeavours are both effective and readily disseminated and where interventions can be supported by appropriate health care personnel. These should be people specifically identified to promote change in service organisation, delivery, and policy that can be systematically evaluated over time, to ensure high-quality, long-term improvements to patients' health.
-
Although patient safety has improved steadily, harm remains a substantial global challenge. Additionally, safety needs to be ensured not only in hospitals but also across the continuum of care. Better understanding of the complex cognitive factors influencing health care-related decisions and organizational cultures could lead to more rational approaches, and thereby to further improvement. ⋯ The proposed model may help enhance rational decision making across the continuum of care, thereby improving patient safety globally.
-
For older adults with osteoporosis, a fall resulting in hip fracture is a life-changing event from which only one-third fully recover. Current best evidence argues strongly for elderly patients to bear weight on their repaired hip fracture immediately after their surgery to maximize their chances of full or nearly full recovery. Patient stakeholders in Canada have argued that some surgeons fail to issue "weight-bearing-as-tolerated" (WBAT) orders in all eligible cases, protecting their bony repair but contributing to increased mortality and long-term disability rates. ⋯ While almost all respondents agreed that weight bearing as tolerated is indeed therapeutic for most hip fracture repair or replacement patients, surgeons also described certain patient characteristics that would diminish the value of immediate weight bearing, including poor bone quality and certain types of fracture pattern. Surgeon factors that affect postoperative mobilization orders include choice of construct, previous experience of construct failure, and lack of local audit data regarding past weight-bearing decisions and patient outcomes. Thus, although familiar with best practice guidelines, surgeons also have "rules to break the rules." In an era when "good" medicine leans toward science rather than art, the role of individual experience in decision making with regard to hip fracture care continues to be important and would benefit from being discussed openly.
-
Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), Values-Based Practice (VBP) and Person-Centered Healthcare (PCH) are all concerned with the values in play in the clinical encounter. However, these recent movements are not in agreement about how to discover these relevant values. ⋯ I argue that although average values for populations might be very useful in informing questions of resource distribution and policy making, their use cannot replace the individual solicitation of patient (and other stakeholder) values in the clinical encounter. Because of the inconsistency of the EBM stance on values, the incompatibility of some versions of the EBM treatment of values with PCH, and EBM's attempt to transplant research methods from science into the realm of values, I must recommend the use of the VBP account of values discovery.
-
The physician is often implicated as an important cause of observed variations in health care service use. However, it is not clear if physician-related variation is problematic for patient care. This paper illustrates that observed physician-related variation is not necessarily unwarranted. ⋯ It is not enough to simply show that physician-related variation can exist-one must also show where it is unwarranted and what is the magnitude of unwarranted variations. Failure to show this can have significant implications on how we interpret and respond to observed variations. Improved measurement of the sources of variation, especially with respect to patient preferences and context, may help us start to disentangle physician-related variation that is desirable from that which is unwarranted.