Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
In recent years, several expensive new health technologies have been introduced. The availability of those technologies intensifies the discussion regarding the affordability of these technologies at different decision-making levels. On the meso level, both hospitals and clinicians are facing budget constraints resulting in a tension to balance between different patients' interests. As such, it is crucial to make optimal use of the available resources. Different strategies are in place to deal with this problem, but decisions on a macro level on what to fund or not can limit the role and freedom of clinicians in their decisions on a micro level. At the same time, without central guidance regarding such decisions, micro level decisions may lead to inequities and undesirable treatment variation between clinicians and hospitals. The challenge is to find instruments that can balance both levels of decision making. ⋯ The development of clinical guidelines which combine economic and clinical evidence should be stimulated, to balance central guidance and uniformity while maintaining necessary decentralized freedom. This is an opportunity to combine the reality of budgets and opportunity costs with clinical practice. Missing this opportunity risks either variation and inequity or central and necessarily crude measures.
-
The field of implementation science has developed in response to slow and inconsistent translation of evidence into practice. Despite utilizing increasingly sophisticated approaches to implementation, including applying a complexity science lens and conducting realist evaluations, challenges remain to getting the kinds of outcomes hoped for by implementation efforts. These include gaining access and buy-in from those implementing the change and accounting for the influence of local context. One emerging approach to address these challenges is embedded implementation research-a collaborative, adaptive approach to improvement. It involves researchers and implementers working together in situ from the outset of, and throughout, an implementation project. Both groups can benefit from the collaboration: it increases the rigor of evaluation, provides opportunities to improve the intervention through direct feedback, and promotes better on-the-ground understanding of the change process. We aimed to examine the potential benefits, and some of the challenges, of increased embeddedness. ⋯ Embedded implementation research approaches hold promise in comparison to traditional dichotomized-research practice designs, where the research is external to the implementation and conducts a summative evaluation. We are only beginning to understand how such partnerships operate in practice and what makes them successful. Our analysis suggests the time has come to consider such approaches.
-
Despite advocacy by diabetes societies and evidence about how to prevent the deleterious consequences of dysglycemia among hospitalized patients, deficits in clinical practice continue to present barriers to care. The purpose of this study was to examine inpatient rounding practices using a qualitative research lens to assess challenges on the care of hospitalized patients with diabetes and to develop ideas for positive changes in hospital management of diabetes and hyperglycemia. ⋯ This work guides clinicians and informs systems of practice about improvement strategies that can emerge from within hospital teams. These recommendations emphasize the interconnectedness of practice elements including thoughtful review of glucose status during rounds among patients with and without diabetes; fostering doctors and nurses to work in unison; promoting awareness and integration within and across disciplines; and advocating for better use of existing resources.
-
Local health administrators implemented chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure admission order sets to increase guideline adherence. We explored the impact of these order sets on workflows and guideline adherence in the internal medicine specialty in two Canadian teaching hospitals. ⋯ It is unclear whether, for these two hospitals, the gains brought by implementation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure admission order sets were worth their associated organisational shortcomings. Problems with order set implementation appeared to stem from poor integration with pre-existing complex organisational systems. Health administrators and clinicians interested in implementing order sets within their own hospitals need to remain cognizant of how these tools will fit into existing systems and practices.