RESUMEN
Background: Understanding how and when a new evidence-based clinical intervention becomes standard practice is crucial to ensure that healthcare is delivered in alignment with the most up-to-date knowledge. However, rigorous methods are needed to determine when a new clinical practice becomes normalized to the standard of care. To address this gap, this study qualitatively explores how, when, and why a clinical practice change becomes normalized within healthcare organizations. Methods: We used purposive sampling to recruit clinical leaders who worked in implementation science across diverse health contexts. Enrolled participants completed semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data analysis was guided by a modified version of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) framework to identify salient themes. Identified normalization strategies were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) project. Results: A total of 17 individuals were interviewed. Participants described four key signals for identifying when a novel clinical practice becomes the new normal: 1) integration into existing workflows; 2) scaling across the entire organizational unit; 3) staff buy-in and ownership; and 4) sustainment without ongoing monitoring. Participants identified salient strategies to normalize new clinical interventions: 1) taking a patient approach; 2) gaining staff buy-in and ownership; and 3) conducting ongoing measurement of progress towards normalization. Conclusions: The results offer valuable insight into the indicators that signify when a novel clinical practice becomes normalized, and the strategies employed to facilitate this transition. These findings can inform future research to develop instruments that implementation leaders can use to systematically measure the clinical change process.
RESUMEN
Background: Little is known about strategies to implement new critical care practices in response to COVID-19. Moreover, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates. Methods: We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed to rate the influence of CFIR constructs on the implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low- versus high-mortality rates. Results: We found associations between various implementation factors and clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Three CFIR constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that collaborative and engaged leadership styles that promote the integration of new yet evidence-based critical care practices best support COVID-19 patients and contribute to lower mortality.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. RESULTS: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. CONCLUSIONS: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.
