Browsing by Person "Niessen, Theo"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

A Bridge Over Turbulent Waters: Illustrating the Interaction Between Managerial Leaders and Facilitators When Implementing Research Evidence
(Blackwell, 2016-01-20) van der Zijpp, Teatske Johanna; Niessen, Theo; Eldh, Ann Catrine; Hawkes, Claire; McMullan, Christel; Mockford, Carole; Wallin, Lars; McCormack, Brendan; Rycroft-Malone, Jo; Seers, Kate
Background: Emerging evidence focuses on the importance of the role of leadership in successfully transferring research evidence into practice. However, little is known about the interaction between managerial leaders and clinical leaders acting as facilitators (internal facilitators [IFs]) in this implementation process. Aims: To describe the interaction between managerial leaders and IFs and how this enabled or hindered the facilitation process of implementing urinary incontinence guideline recommendations in a local context in settings that provide long-term care to older people. Methods: Semistructured interviews with 105 managers and 22 IFs, collected for a realist process evaluation across four European countries informed this study. An interpretive data analysis unpacks interactions between managerial leaders and IFs. Results: This study identified three themes that were important in the interactions between managerial leaders and IFs that could hinder or support the implementation process: realising commitment negotiating conditions and encouragement to keep momentum going. The findings revealed that the continuous reciprocal relationships between IFs and managerial leaders influenced the progress of implementation, and could slow the process down or disrupt it. A metaphor of crossing a turbulent river by the building of a bridge emerged as one way of understanding the findings. Linking Evidence to Action: Our findings illuminate a neglected area, the effects of relationships between key staff on implementing evidence into practice. Relational aspects of managerial and clinical leadership roles need greater consideration when planning guideline implementation and practice change. In order to support implementation, staff assigned as IFs as well as stakeholders like managers at all levels of an organisation should be engaged in realising commitment, negotiating conditions, and keeping momentum going. Thus, communication is crucial between all involved. 2016 Sigma Theta Tau International.
Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE): An international cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate two models of facilitation informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework
(BioMed Central, 2018-11-16) Seers, Kate; Rycroft-Malone, Jo; Cox, Karen; Crichton, Nicola; Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor; Eldh, Ann Catrine; Estabrooks, Carole A.; Harvey, Gill; Hawkes, Claire; Jones, Carys; Kitson, Alison; McCormack, Brendan; McMullan, Christel; Mockford, Carole; Niessen, Theo; Slater, Paul; Titchen, Angie; van der Zijpp, Teatske; Wallin, Lars
Background - Health care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. This study used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework as its theoretical underpinning to test whether two different approaches to facilitating implementation could affect the use of research evidence in practice. Methods - A pragmatic clustered randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation was used. The study took place in four European countries across 24 long-term nursing care sites, for people aged 60 years or more with documented urinary incontinence. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination, or one of two different types of facilitation. The primary outcome was the documented percentage compliance with the continence recommendations, assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the intervention. Data were analysed using STATA15, multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models were fitted to scores for compliance with the continence recommendations, adjusting for clustering. Results - Quantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (documented compliance with continence recommendations) between study arms and all study arms improved over time. Conclusions - This was the first cross European randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation that sought to test different methods of facilitation. There were no statistically significant differences in compliance with continence recommendations between the groups. It was not possible to identify whether different types and “doses” of facilitation were influential within very diverse contextual conditions. The process evaluation (Rycroft-Malone et al., Implementation Science. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0) revealed the models of facilitation used were limited in their ability to overcome the influence of contextual factors.
A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: An exemplar
(BioMed Central, 2018-11-16) Rycroft-Malone, Jo; Seers, Kate; Eldh, Ann Catrine; Cox, Karen; Crichton, Nicola; Harvey, Gill; Hawkes, Claire; Kitson, Alison; McCormack, Brendan; McMullan, Christel; Mockford, Carole; Niessen, Theo; Slater, Paul; Titchen, Angie; van der Zijpp, Teatske; Wallin, Lars
Background Facilitation is a promising implementation intervention, which requires theory informed evaluation. This paper presents an exemplar of a multi-country realist process evaluation that was embedded in the first international randomised controlled trial evaluating two types of facilitation for implementing urinary continence care recommendations. We aimed to uncover what worked (and did not work), for whom, how, why and in what circumstances during the process of implementing the facilitation interventions in practice. Methods This realist process evaluation included theory formulation, theory testing and refining. Data were collected in 24 care home sites across four European countries. Data were collected over four time-points using multiple qualitative methods: observation (372 hours), interviews with staff (n=357), residents (n=152), next of kin (n=109) other stakeholders (n=128), supplemented by facilitator activity logs. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process focused on realist theory refinement and testing. Results The content and approach of the two facilitation programmes prompted variable opportunities to align and realign support with the needs and expectations of facilitators and homes. This influenced their level of confidence in fulfilling the facilitator role, and ability to deliver the intervention as planned. The success of intervention implementation was largely dependent on whether sites prioritised their involvement in both the study and the facilitation programme. In contexts where the study was prioritised (including release of resources) and where managers and staff support was sustained, this prompted collective engagement (as an attitude and action). Internal facilitators’ (IF) personal characteristics and abilities, including personal and formal authority, in combination with a supportive environment prompted by managers triggered the potential for learning over time. Learning over time resulted in a sense of confidence and personal growth, and enactment of the facilitation role, which resulted in practice changes. Conclusion The scale and multi-country nature of this study provided a novel context to conduct one of the few trial embedded realist informed process evaluations. In addition to providing an explanatory account of implementation processes, a conceptual platform for future facilitation research is presented. Finally a realist informed process evaluation framework is outlined, which could inform future research of this nature.