Implementation of ultrasound after central venous catheter insertion: A qualitative study in early adopters.

BACKGROUND: The adoption rate of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for the confirmation of central venous catheter (CVC) positioning and exclusion of post procedure pneumothorax is low despite advantages in workflow compared to traditional chest X-ray (CXR). To explore why, we convened focus groups to address barriers and facilitators of implementation for POCUS guided CVC confirmation and de-implementation of post-procedure CXR. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with emergency medicine and critical care providers to discuss current practices in POCUS for CVC confirmation. The semi-structured focus group interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We performed qualitative content analysis of the resulting transcripts using a consensual qualitative research approach (NVivo software), aiming to identify priority categories that describe the barriers and facilitators of POCUS guided CVC confirmation. RESULTS: The coding dictionary of barriers and facilitators consisted of 21 codes from the focus group discussions. Our qualitative analysis revealed that 12 codes emerged spontaneously (inductively) within the focus group discussions and aligned directly to CFIR constructs. Common barriers included provider influences (e.g. knowledge and beliefs about POCUS for CVC confirmation), external network (e.g. societal guidelines, ancillary staff, and consultants), and inertia (habit or reflexive processes). Common facilitators included ultrasound protocol advantage and champions. Time and provider outcomes (cognitive offload, ownership, and independence) emerged as early barriers but late facilitators. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative analysis demonstrates real and perceived barriers against implementation of POCUS for CVC position confirmation and pneumothorax exclusion. Our findings discovered organizational and personal constructs that will inform development of multifaceted strategies toward implementation of POCUS after CVC insertion.

Training the workforce in evidence-based public health: an evaluation of impact among US and international practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: The Prevention Research Center in St. Louis developed a course on evidence-based public health in 1997 to train the public health workforce in implementation of evidence-based public health. The objective of this study was to assess use and benefits of the course and identify barriers to using evidence-based public health skills as well as ways to improve the course. METHODS: We used a mixed-method design incorporating on-site pre- and post-evaluations among US and international course participants who attended from 2008 through 2011 and web-based follow-up surveys among course participants who attended from 2005 through 2011 (n = 626). Respondents included managers, specialists, and academics at state health departments, local health departments, universities, and national/regional health departments. RESULTS: We found significant improvement from pre- to post-evaluation for 11 measures of knowledge, skill, and ability. Follow-up survey results showed at least quarterly use of course skills in most categories, majority endorsement of most course benefits, and lack of funding and coworkers who do not have evidence-based public health training as the most significant barriers to implementation of evidence-based public health. Respondents suggested ways to increase evidence-based decision making at their organization, focusing on organizational support and continued access to training. CONCLUSION: Although the evidence-based public health course is effective in improving self-reported measures of knowledge, skill, and ability, barriers remain to the implementation of evidence-based decision making, demonstrating the importance of continuing to offer and expand training in evidence-based public health.