Nursing
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/24
Browse
Search Results
Item 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, LarsBackground - 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.Item Designing and implementing two facilitation interventions within the 'Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE)' study: A qualitative analysis from an external facilitators' perspective(BioMed Central, 2018-11-16) Harvey, Gill; McCormack, Brendan; Kitson, Alison; Lynch, Elizabeth; Titchen, AngieBackground The 'Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence' study found no significant differences between sites that received two types of facilitation support and those that did not on the primary outcome of documented compliance with guideline recommendations. Process evaluation highlighted factors that influenced local, internal facilitators' ability to enact the roles as envisaged. In this paper, the external facilitators responsible for designing and delivering the two types of facilitation intervention analyse why the interventions proved difficult to implement as expected, including the challenge of balancing fidelity and adaptation. Methods Qualitative data sources included notes from monthly internal-external facilitator teleconference meetings, from closing events for the two facilitation interventions and summary data analyses from repeated interviews with 16 internal facilitators. Deductive and inductive data analysis was led by an independent researcher to evaluate how facilitation in practice compared to the logic pathways designed to guide fidelity in the delivery of the interventions. Results The planned facilitation interventions did not work as predicted. Difficulties were encountered in each of the five elements of the logic pathway: recruitment and selection of appropriate internal facilitators; preparation for the role; ability to apply facilitation knowledge and skills at a local level; support and mentorship from external facilitators via monthly teleconferences; working collaboratively and enabling colleagues to implement guideline recommendations. Moreover, problems were cumulative and created tensions for the external facilitators in terms of balancing the logic pathway with a more real-world, flexible and iterative approach to facilitation. Conclusion Evaluating an intervention that is fluid and dynamic within the methodology of a randomised controlled trial is complex and challenging. At a practical level, relational aspects of facilitation are critically important. It is essential to recruit and retain individuals with the appropriate set of skills and characteristics, explicit support from managerial leaders and accessible mentorship from more experienced facilitators. At a methodological level, there is a need for attention to the balance between fidelity and adaptation of interventions. For future studies, we suggest a theoretical approach to fidelity, with a focus on mechanisms, informed by prospective use of process evaluation data and more detailed investigation of the context-facilitation dynamic.Item 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, LarsBackground 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.