<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Implementation Science - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by Implementation Science</description>
        <dc:date>2012-01-31T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/8" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/7" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/6" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/5" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/4" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/133" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/132" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/8">
        <title>Implementing a stepped care approach in primary care. Results of a qualitative study.</title>
        <description>Background:
Since 2004, &apos;stepped-care models&apos; have been adopted in several international evidence-based clinical guidelines to guide clinicians in the organisation of depression care. To enhance the adoption of this new treatment approach, a Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) was initiated in the Netherlands.
Methods:
Alongside the QIC, an intervention study using a controlled before-and-after design was performed. Part of the study was a process evaluation, utilizing semi-structured group interviews, to provide insight into the perceptions of the participating clinicians on the implementation of stepped care for depression into their daily routines. Participants were primary care clinicians, specialist clinicians, and other healthcare staff from eight regions in the Netherlands. Analysis was supported by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).
Results:
The introduction of a stepped-care model for depression to primary care teams within the context of a depression QIC was generally well received by participating clinicians. All three elements of the proposed stepped-care model (patient differentiation, stepped-care treatment, and outcome monitoring), were translated and introduced locally. Clinicians reported changes in terms of learning how to differentiate between patient groups and different levels of care, changing antidepressant prescribing routines as a consequence of having a broader treatment package to offer to their patients, and better working relationships with patients and colleagues. A complex range of factors influenced the implementation process. Facilitating factors were the stepped-care model itself, the structured team meetings (part of the QIC method), and the positive reaction from patients to stepped care. The differing views of depression and depression care within multidisciplinary health teams, lack of resources, and poor information systems hindered the rapid introduction of the stepped-care model. The NPT constructs &apos;coherence&apos; and &apos;cognitive participation&apos; appeared to be crucial drivers in the initial stage of the process.
Conclusions:
Stepped care for depression is received positively in primary care. While it is difficult for the implementation of a full stepped-care approach to occur within a short time frame, clinicians can make progress towards achieving a stepped-care approach, particularly within the context of a QIC. Creating a shared understanding within multidisciplinary teams of what constitutes depression, reaching a consensus about the content of depression care, and the division of tasks are important when addressing the implementation process.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/8</link>
                <dc:creator>Gerdien Franx</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Matthijs Oud</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jacomine De Lange</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michel Wensing</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Richard Grol</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:8</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-31T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-8</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-8-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>8</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-31T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/7">
        <title>A cluster randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a &apos;whole systems&apos; model of self-management support for the management of long- term conditions in primary care: trial protocol</title>
        <description>Background:
Patients with long-term conditions are increasingly the focus of quality improvement activities in health services to reduce the impact of these conditions on quality of life and to reduce the burden on care utilisation. There is significant interest in the potential for self-management support to improve health and reduce utilisation in these patient populations, but little consensus concerning the optimal model that would best provide such support. We describe the implementation and evaluation of self-management support through an evidence-based &apos;whole systems&apos; model involving patient support, training for primary care teams, and service re-organisation, all integrated into routine delivery within primary care.
Methods:
The evaluation involves a large-scale, multi-site study of the implementation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of this model of self-management support using a cluster randomised controlled trial in patients with three long-term conditions of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The outcome measures include healthcare utilisation and quality of life. We describe the methods of the cluster randomised trial.DiscussionIf the &apos;whole systems&apos; model proves effective and cost-effective, it will provide decision-makers with a model for the delivery of self-management support for populations with long-term conditions that can be implemented widely to maximise &apos;reach&apos; across the wider patient population.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register:  ISRCTN90940049</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/7</link>
                <dc:creator>Peter Bower</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anne Kennedy</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Reeves</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anne Rogers</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tom Blakeman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Carolyn Chew-Graham</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robert Bowen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Martin Eden</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Caroline Gardner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mark Hann</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Victoria Lee</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rebecca Morris</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Joanne Protheroe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gerry Richardson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Caroline Sanders</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Angela Swallow</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Thompson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:7</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-7</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-7-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-26T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/6">
        <title>Increasing efficacy of primary care-based counseling for diabetes prevention: Rationale and design of the ADAPT (Avoiding Diabetes Thru Action Plan Targeting) trial</title>
        <description>Background:
Studies have shown that lifestyle behavior changes are most effective to prevent onset of diabetes in high-risk patients. Primary care providers are charged with encouraging behavior change among their patients at risk for diabetes, yet the practice environment and training in primary care often do not support effective provider counseling. The goal of this study is to develop an electronic health record-embedded tool to facilitate shared patient-provider goal setting to promote behavioral change and prevent diabetes.
Methods:
The ADAPT (Avoiding Diabetes Thru Action Plan Targeting) trial leverages an innovative system that integrates evidence-based interventions for behavioral change with already-existing technology to enhance primary care providers&apos; effectiveness to counsel about lifestyle behavior changes. Using principles of behavior change theory, the multidisciplinary design team utilized in-depth interviews and in vivo usability testing to produce a prototype diabetes prevention counseling system embedded in the electronic health record.
Results:
The core element of the tool is a streamlined, shared goal-setting module within the electronic health record system. The team then conducted a series of innovative, &quot;near-live&quot; usability testing simulations to refine the tool and enhance workflow integration. The system also incorporates a pre-encounter survey to elicit patients&apos; behavior-change goals to help tailor patient-provider goal setting during the clinical encounter and to encourage shared decision making. Lastly, the patients interact with a website that collects their longitudinal behavior data and allows them to visualize their progress over time and compare their progress with other study members. The finalized ADAPT system is now being piloted in a small randomized control trial of providers using the system with prediabetes patients over a six-month period.
Conclusions:
The ADAPT system combines the influential powers of shared goal setting and feedback, tailoring, modeling, contracting, reminders, and social comparisons to integrate evidence-based behavior-change principles into the electronic health record to maximize provider counseling efficacy during routine primary care clinical encounters. If successful, the ADAPT system may represent an adaptable and scalable technology-enabled behavior-change tool for all primary care providers.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01473654</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/6</link>
                <dc:creator>Devin Mann</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jenny Lin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:6</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-6</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-6-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-23T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/5">
        <title>Early experiences on the feasibility, acceptability, and use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests at peripheral health centres in Uganda--insights into some barriers and facilitators</title>
        <description>Background:
While feasibility of new health technologies in well-resourced healthcare settings is extensively documented, it is largely unknown in low-resourced settings. Uganda&apos;s decision to deploy and scale up malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) in public health facilities and at the community level provides a useful entry point for documenting field experience, acceptance, and predictive variables for technology acceptance and use. These findings are important in informing implementation of new health technologies, plans, and budgets in low-resourced national disease control programmes.
Methods:
A cross-sectional qualitative descriptive study at 21 health centres in Uganda was undertaken in 2007 to elucidate the barriers and facilitators in the introduction of mRDTs as a new diagnostic technology at lower-level health facilities. Pre-tested interview questionnaires were administered through pre-structured patient exit interviews and semi-structured health worker interviews to gain an understanding of the response to this implementation. A conceptual framework on technology acceptance and use was adapted for this study and used to prepare the questionnaires. Thematic analysis was used to generate themes from the data.
Results:
A total of 52 of 57 health workers (92%) reported a belief that a positive mRDT result was true, although only 41 of 57 (64%) believed that treatment with anti-malarials was justified for every positive mRDT case. Of the same health workers, only 49% believed that a negative mRDT result was truly negative. Factors linked to these findings were related to mRDT acceptance and use, including the design and characteristics of the device, availability and quality of mRDT ancillary supplies, health worker capacity to investigate febrile cases testing negative with the device and provide appropriate treatment, availability of effective malaria treatments, reliability of the health commodity supply chain, existing national policy recommendations, individual health worker dynamism, and vitality of supervision.
Conclusions:
mRDTs were found to be acceptable to and used by the target users, provided clear policy guidelines exist, ancillary tools are easy to use and health supplies beyond the diagnostic tools are met. Based on our results, health workers&apos; needs for comprehensive case management should be met, and specific guidance for managing febrile patients with negative test outcomes should be provided alongside the new health technology. The extent to which the implementation process of mRDT-led, parasite-based diagnosis accommodates end user beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and satisfaction, as well as technology learnability and suitability, influences the level of acceptance and use of mRDTs. The effectiveness of the health system in providing the enabling environment and the integration of the diagnostic tool into routine service delivery is critical.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/5</link>
                <dc:creator>Caroline Asiimwe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Daniel Kyabayinze</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Zephania Kyalisiima</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jane Nabakooza</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Moses Bajabaite</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Helen Counihan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>James Tibenderana</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:5</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-5</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-5-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-23T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/4">
        <title>Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence: Protocol for an audit with feedback intervention in home care and supportive living</title>
        <description>Background:
Although considerable evidence exists about the effectiveness of audit coupled with feedback, very few audit-with-feedback interventions have been done in either home care or supportive living settings to date. With little history of audit and feedback in home care or supportive living there is potential for greater effects, at least initially. This study extends the work of an earlier study designed to assess the effects of an audit-with-feedback intervention. It will be delivered quarterly over a one-year period in seven home care offices and 11 supportive living sites. The research questions are the same as in the first study but in a different environment. They are as follows:1.	What effects do feedback reports have on processes and outcomes over time?2.	How do different provider groups in home care and supportive living sites respond to feedback reports based on quality indicator data?
Methods:
The research team conducting this study includes researchers and decision makers in continuing care in the province of Alberta, Canada. The intervention consists of quarterly feedback reports in 19 home care offices and supportive living sites across Alberta. Data for the feedback reports are based on the Resident Assessment Instrument Home Care tool, a standardized instrument mandated for use in home care and supportive living environments throughout Alberta. The feedback reports consist of one page, printed front and back, presenting both graphic and textual information. Reports are delivered to all employees working in each site. The primary evaluation uses a controlled interrupted time-series design, both adjusted and unadjusted for covariates. The concurrent process evaluation includes observation, focus groups, and self-reports to assess uptake of the feedback reports. The project described in this protocol follows a similar intervention conducted in our previous study, Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence--Long-Term Care. We will offer dissemination strategies and spread of the feedback report approach in several ways suited to various audiences and stakeholders throughout Alberta.SignificanceThis study will generate knowledge about the effects of an audit with feedback intervention in home care and supportive living settings. Our dissemination activities will focus on supporting sites to continue to use the Resident Assessment Instrument data in their quality improvement activities.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/4</link>
                <dc:creator>Kimberly Fraser</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anne Sales</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Hannah O'Rourke</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Corrine Schalm</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:4</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-18T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-4</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-4-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-18T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/3">
        <title>Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice</title>
        <description>Background:
In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different &apos;steps,&apos; with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management.
Methods:
We recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement.
Results:
We collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%.
Conclusions:
When services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>David Richards</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Bower</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christina Pagel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alice Weaver</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Martin Utley</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Cape</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Steve Pilling</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karina Lovell</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Simon Gilbody</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Judy Leibowitz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lilian Owens</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Roger Paxton</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sue Hennessy</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Angela Simpson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Steve Gallivan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Tomson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christos Vasilakis</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-3</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-3-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-16T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/2">
        <title>Use of health systems and policy research evidence in the health policymaking in eastern Mediterranean countries: views and practices of researchers</title>
        <description>Background:
Limited research exists on researchers&apos; knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) in the eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). This multi-country study explores researchers&apos; views and experiences regarding the role of health systems and policy research evidence in health policymaking in the EMR, including the factors that influence health policymaking, barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence, and the factors that increase researchers&apos; engagement in KTE.
Methods:
Researchers who published health systems and policy relevant research in 12 countries in the EMR (Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) were surveyed. Descriptive analysis and Linear Mixed Regression Models were performed for quantitative sections and the simple thematic analysis approach was used for open-ended questions.
Results:
A total of 238 researchers were asked to complete the survey (response rate 56%). Researchers indicated transferring results to other researchers (67.2%) and policymakers in the government (40.5%). Less than one-quarter stated that they produced policy briefs (14.5%), disseminated messages that specified possible actions (24.4%), interacted with policymakers and stakeholders in priority-setting (16%), and involved them in their research (19.8%). Insufficient policy dialogue opportunities and collaboration between researchers and policymakers and stakeholders (67.9%), practical constraints to implementation (66%), non-receptive policy environment (61.3%), and politically sensitive findings (57.7%) hindered the use of evidence. Factors that increase researchers&apos; engagement in KTE activities in the region were associated with involving policymakers and stakeholders at various stages such as priority-setting exercises and provision of technical assistance.
Conclusions:
Researchers in the EMR recognize the importance of using health systems evidence in health policymaking. Potential strategies to improve the use of research evidence emphasize two-way communication between researchers and policymakers. Findings are critical for the upcoming World Health Report 2012, which will emphasize the significance of conducting and translating health research to inform health policies.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Fadi El-Jardali</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Lavis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nour Ataya</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Diana Jamal</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-2</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-2-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-11T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/1">
        <title>Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: an exploratory study </title>
        <description>Background:
Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together groups of healthcare professionals to work in a structured manner to improve the quality of healthcare delivery within particular domains. We explored which characteristics of the composition, participation, functioning and organization of these collaboratives related to changes in the healthcare for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, or schizophrenia.
Methods:
We studied three QICs involving 29 quality improvement (QI) teams representing a number of mental healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The aims of the three QICs were the implementation of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in the domains of anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia, respectively. We used eight performance indicators to assess the impact of the QI teams on self-reported patient outcomes and a number of process of care outcomes for 1.346 patients. The QI team members completed a questionnaire on the characteristics of the composition, participation in a national program, functioning and organizational context for their teams. It was expected that an association would be found between these team characteristics and the quality of care for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia.
Results:
No consistent patterns of association emerged. Theory-based factors did not perform better than practice-based factors. However, QI teams that received support from their management and both active and inspirational team leadership showed better results. Rather surprisingly, a lower average level of education among the team members was associated with better results although less consistently than the management and leadership characteristics. Team views with regard to the QI goals of the team and attitudes towards multidisciplinary practice guidelines did not correlate with team success.
Conclusions:
No general conclusions about the impact of the characteristics of QI teams on the quality of healthcare can be drawn, but support of the management and active, inspirational team leadership appear to be important.  Not only patient outcomes but also the performance indicators of monitoring and screening/assessment showed improvement in many but not all of the QI teams with such characteristics. More studies are needed to identify factors associated with the impact of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in mental healthcare.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Marleen Versteeg</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Miranda Laurant</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gerdien Franx</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Annelies Jacobs</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michel Wensing</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2012, null:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-1</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-7-1-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-09T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/133">
        <title>Understanding implementation processes of clinical pathways and clinical practice guidelines in pediatric contexts: A study protocol </title>
        <description>Background:
Canada is among the most prosperous nations in the world, yet the health and wellness outcomes of Canadian children are surprisingly poor. There is some evidence to suggest that these poor health outcomes are partly due to clinical practice variation, which can stem from failure to apply the best available research evidence in clinical practice, otherwise known as knowledge translation (KT). Surprisingly, clinical practice variation, even for common acute paediatric conditions, is pervasive. Clinical practice variation results in unnecessary medical treatments, increased suffering, and increased healthcare costs. This study focuses on improving health outcomes for common paediatric acute health concerns by evaluating strategies that improve KT and reduce clinical practice variation.Design/MethodsUsing a multiple case study design, qualitative and quantitative data will be collected from four emergency departments in western Canada. Data sources will include: pre- and post-implementation focus group data from multidisciplinary healthcare professionals; individual interviews with the local champions, KT intervention providers, and unit/site leaders/managers; Alberta Context Tool (ACT) survey data; and aggregated patient outcome data. Qualitative and quantitative data will be systematically triangulated, and matrices will be built to do cross-case comparison. Explanations will be built about the success or lack of success of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and clinical pathways (CPs) uptake based upon the cross-case comparisons.SignificanceThis study will generate new knowledge about the potential causal mechanisms and factors which shape implementation. Future studies will track the impact of the CPG/CPs implementation on children&apos;s health outcome, and healthcare costs.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/133</link>
                <dc:creator>Shannon Scott</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeremy Grimshaw</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Terry Klassen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alberto Nettel-Aguirre</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Johnson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2011, null:133</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-28T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-133</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-6-133-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>133</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-28T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/132">
        <title>Challenges of nurse delivery of psychological interventions for long-term conditions in primary care: a qualitative exploration of the case of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis  </title>
        <description>Background:
The evidence base for a range of psychosocial and behavioural interventions in managing and supporting patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) is now well-established. With increasing numbers of such patients being managed in primary care, and a shortage of specialists in psychology and behavioural management to deliver interventions, therapeutic interventions are increasingly being delivered by general nurses with limited training in psychological interventions. It is unknown what issues this raises for the nurses or their patients. The purpose of the study was to examine the challenges faced by non-specialist nurses when delivering psychological interventions for an LTC (chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis [CFS/ME]) within a primary care setting.
Methods:
A qualitative study nested within a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN 74156610] explored the experiences and acceptability of two different psychological interventions (pragmatic rehabilitation and supportive listening) from the perspectives of nurses, their supervisors, and patients. Semi structured in-depth interviews were conducted with three nurse therapists, three supervisors, and 46 patients. An iterative approach was used to develop conceptual categories from the dataset.
Results:
Analyses identified four sets of challenges that were common to both interventions: (i) being a novice therapist, (ii) engaging patients in the therapeutic model, (iii) dealing with emotions, and (iv) the complexity of primary care. Each challenge had the potential to cause tension between therapist and patient. A number of strategies were developed by participants to manage the tensions.
Conclusions:
Tensions existed for nurses when attempting to deliver psychological interventions for patients with CFS/ME in this primary care trial. Such tensions should be addressed before implementing psychological interventions within routine clinical practice. Similar tensions may be found for other LTCs. Our findings have implications for developing therapeutic alliances and highlight the need for regular supervision.</description>
        <link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/132</link>
                <dc:creator>Sarah Peters</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alison Wearden</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Richard Morriss</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christopher Dowrick</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karina Lovell</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Joanna Brooks</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Greg Cahill</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Carolyn Chew-Graham</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Implementation Science 2011, null:132</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-22T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-132</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1748-5908-6-132-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>132</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-22T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

