Thoonsen Andrea C, Merten Hanneke, Broeders Toby T, Gans Anika, van Beusekom Ilse, Delnoij Diana M J, de Bruijne Martine C
Amsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zorginstituut Nederland, Department of Care, Willem Dudokhof 1, NL-1112 ZA, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Dec 23;22(1):174. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01253-0.
Research indicates suboptimal uptake and impact of clinical practice guidelines in Dutch healthcare. Dutch guideline organizations, i.e. guideline developers, governmental agencies, health insurers and other national organizations, develop, authorize and/or support the use of guidelines in Dutch clinical practice. These organizations influence the end users' awareness, accessibility, understanding, acceptability and applicability of guidelines and, therefore, play a crucial role in guideline implementation. This study explores how they plan, execute, monitor and evaluate guideline dissemination and implementation.
Utilizing a qualitative design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 participants from 24 guideline organizations. We conducted framework analysis, using theories on guideline implementation planning, the 'taxonomy of strategies for achieving guideline implementation and compliance' and the principles of logic models to analyse the data.
Most guideline organizations made limited use of implementation planning approaches that are known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. These approaches include pre-identifying implementation barriers, engaging stakeholders and applying implementation theories, models and frameworks to select and tailor implementation strategies. Instead, they primarily relied on a standard set of predominantly dissemination and occasional implementation strategies known to be practical in terms of ease, cost and time. Commonly used implementation strategies included distributing, advertising and presenting guideline materials, along with providing additional implementation supporting materials. Regarding monitoring and evaluation methods, few organizations assessed the process, outcome or impact of guideline implementation. Those that did primarily relied on clinical peer review and benchmark information for their assessments.
While Dutch guideline organizations recognized and endorsed the importance of implementation, this did not consistently translate into tailored implementation actions. Most guideline organizations did not have an integrated, structural and well-thought-out plan for implementation. The lack of regular, structured monitoring and evaluation raised uncertainties about the effectiveness of implementation in supporting end users and improving patient outcomes. Suggested follow-up research and practice enhancements could strengthen central-level implementation efforts, fostering more effective local implementation and, ultimately, improving health outcomes.
研究表明荷兰医疗保健领域临床实践指南的采用情况及影响并不理想。荷兰的指南组织,即指南制定者、政府机构、健康保险公司和其他国家组织,负责制定、授权和/或支持荷兰临床实践中指南的使用。这些组织影响最终用户对指南的认知、获取、理解、接受和适用性,因此在指南实施中发挥着关键作用。本研究探讨它们如何规划、执行、监测和评估指南的传播与实施。
采用定性设计,我们对来自24个指南组织的35名参与者进行了半结构化访谈。我们运用指南实施规划理论、“实现指南实施与合规的策略分类法”以及逻辑模型原则进行框架分析,以分析数据。
大多数指南组织对已知可提高指南采用率和影响力的实施规划方法使用有限。这些方法包括预先识别实施障碍、让利益相关者参与以及应用实施理论、模型和框架来选择和定制实施策略。相反,它们主要依赖一套标准的、主要是传播性的且偶尔有实施性的策略,这些策略在简便性、成本和时间方面被认为是可行的。常用的实施策略包括分发、宣传和展示指南材料,以及提供额外的实施支持材料。关于监测和评估方法,很少有组织评估指南实施的过程、结果或影响。进行评估的组织主要依赖临床同行评审和基准信息。
虽然荷兰指南组织认识到并认可实施的重要性,但这并未始终转化为量身定制的实施行动。大多数指南组织没有一个综合、结构化且经过深思熟虑的实施计划。缺乏定期、结构化的监测和评估增加了实施在支持最终用户和改善患者结局方面有效性的不确定性。建议的后续研究和实践改进可加强中央层面的实施工作,促进更有效的地方实施,并最终改善健康结局。