School of Health Administration, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Apr 6;22(1):450. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07827-4.
There is an urgent need to understand the determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of de-implementation. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care from the published literature and to compare this list to determinants identified by a group of stakeholders with lived experience with de-implementation.
This was a two-phase multi-method study. First, a systematic review examined published barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, reference lists and the grey literature. Citations were screened independently and in duplicate and included if they were: 1) written in English; and 2) described a barrier or facilitator to de-implementation of any clinical practice in adults (age ≥ 18 years). 'Raw text' determinants cited within included articles were extracted and synthesized into a list of representative determinants using conventional content analysis. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with decision-makers (unit managers and medical directors) and healthcare professionals working in adult critical care medicine to explore the overlap between the determinants found in the systematic review to those experienced in critical care medicine. Thematic content analysis was used to identify key themes emerging from the interviews.
In the systematic review, reviewers included 172 articles from 35,368 unique citations. From 437 raw text barriers and 280 raw text facilitators, content analysis produced 29 distinct barriers and 24 distinct facilitators to de-implementation. Distinct barriers commonly cited within raw text included 'lack of credible evidence to support de-implementation' (n = 90, 21%), 'entrenched norms and clinicians' resistance to change (n = 43, 21%), and 'patient demands and preferences' (n = 28, 6%). Distinct facilitators commonly cited within raw text included 'stakeholder collaboration and communication' (n = 43, 15%), and 'availability of credible evidence' (n = 33, 12%). From stakeholder interviews, 23 of 29 distinct barriers and 20 of 24 distinct facilitators from the systematic review were cited as key themes relevant to de-implementation in critical care.
The availability and quality of evidence that identifies a clinical practice as low-value, as well as healthcare professional willingness to change, and stakeholder collaboration are common and important determinants of de-implementation and may serve as targets for future de-implementation initiatives.
The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO CRD42016050234 .
迫切需要了解(即障碍和促进因素)实施的决定因素。本研究的目的是从已发表的文献中制定一份关于低价值护理实施的决定因素的综合清单,并将其与具有实施经验的利益相关者确定的决定因素进行比较。
这是一个两阶段的多方法研究。首先,系统评价审查了已发表的实施障碍和促进因素。文章是通过在电子数据库、参考文献列表和灰色文献中搜索确定的。如果文章符合以下标准,则独立并重复筛选纳入:1)用英文书写;2)描述任何成人(年龄≥18 岁)临床实践的实施障碍或促进因素。从纳入文章的“原始文本”中提取并综合出具有代表性的决定因素使用常规内容分析。其次,对从事成人重症监护医学的决策者(单位经理和医学主任)和医疗保健专业人员进行半结构化访谈,以探讨系统评价中发现的决定因素与重症监护医学中经验的重叠。使用主题内容分析确定访谈中出现的关键主题。
在系统评价中,审稿人从 35368 个独特引文中纳入了 172 篇文章。从 437 个原始文本障碍和 280 个原始文本促进因素中,内容分析产生了 29 个实施障碍和 24 个实施促进因素。原始文本中常见的实施障碍包括“缺乏支持实施的可信证据”(n=90,21%)、“既定规范和临床医生对变革的抵制”(n=43,21%)和“患者需求和偏好”(n=28,6%)。原始文本中常见的实施促进因素包括“利益相关者合作与沟通”(n=43,15%)和“可信证据的可用性”(n=33,12%)。从利益相关者访谈中,系统评价中 29 个独特障碍中的 23 个和 24 个独特促进因素中的 20 个被引述为与重症监护实施相关的关键主题。
确定临床实践为低价值的证据的可及性和质量,以及医疗保健专业人员愿意改变的意愿和利益相关者的合作,是实施的常见且重要的决定因素,可能成为未来实施举措的目标。
系统评价在 PROSPERO CRD42016050234 中进行了注册。