Cross-Sudworth Fiona, Dharni Nimarta, Kenyon Sara, Lilford Richard, Taylor Beck
Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, University Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Implement Sci Commun. 2024 Sep 27;5(1):103. doi: 10.1186/s43058-024-00647-z.
Implementing research evidence into clinical practice is challenging. This study aim was to explore implementation of two intrapartum trials with compelling findings: BUMPES (position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with epidural), and RESPITE (remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia).
A qualitative interview study set in UK National Health Service Trusts and Universities. Purposively sampled investigators from RESPITE and BUMPES trials and clinicians providing intrapartum care: midwives, anaesthetists, and obstetricians, were recruited using existing networks and snowball sampling. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis was underpinned by Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour Change Framework.
Twenty-nine interview participants across 19 maternity units: 11 clinical academics, 10 midwives, 4 obstetricians, 4 anaesthetists. Most (25/29) were aware of one or both trials. BUMPES had been implemented in 4/19 units (one original trial site) and RESPITE in 3/19 units (two trial sites). Access to sufficient resources, training, exposure to interventions, support from leaders, and post-trial dissemination and implementation activities all facilitated uptake of interventions. Some clinicians were opposed to the intervention or disagreed with trial conclusions. However competing priorities in terms of staff time and a plethora of initiatives in maternity care, emerged as a key barrier to implementation.
Compelling trial findings were not implemented widely, and numerous barriers and facilitators were identified. Large-scale improvement programmes and evidence-based national guidelines may mean single trials have limited potential to change practice. There is a need to examine how intervention implementation is prioritised to optimise safety outcomes in the context of workforce restrictions, limited resources and large arrays of competing priorities including statutory requirements, that have increased in maternity care.
将研究证据应用于临床实践具有挑战性。本研究旨在探讨两项具有显著研究结果的产时试验的实施情况:BUMPES(硬膜外麻醉初产妇第二产程的体位)和RESPITE(瑞芬太尼静脉自控镇痛)。
在英国国民健康服务信托基金和大学中开展的一项定性访谈研究。采用现有网络和滚雪球抽样的方法,招募了RESPITE和BUMPES试验的目标抽样研究者以及提供产时护理的临床医生:助产士、麻醉师和产科医生。进行了半结构化虚拟访谈。主题分析以能力-机会-动机-行为改变框架为基础。
来自19个产科单位的29名访谈参与者:11名临床学者、10名助产士、4名产科医生、4名麻醉师。大多数(25/29)知晓一项或两项试验。BUMPES已在4/19个单位(一个原始试验地点)实施,RESPITE在3/19个单位(两个试验地点)实施。获得充足的资源、培训、接触干预措施、领导者的支持以及试验后的传播和实施活动都促进了干预措施的采用。一些临床医生反对该干预措施或不同意试验结论。然而,工作人员时间方面的相互竞争的优先事项以及产科护理中的大量举措,成为实施的关键障碍。
令人信服的试验结果未得到广泛实施,并且识别出了众多障碍和促进因素。大规模改进计划和基于证据的国家指南可能意味着单个试验改变实践的潜力有限。有必要研究如何在劳动力受限、资源有限以及包括法定要求在内的大量相互竞争的优先事项(产科护理中此类优先事项有所增加)的背景下,对干预措施的实施进行优先排序,以优化安全结果。