Defining the transition from new to normal: a qualitative investigation of the clinical change process.

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.

Examining health care champions: a mixed-methods study exploring self and peer perspectives of champions.

Background: Champions are widely recognized as playing a key role in the successful implementation of evidence-based interventions within the health care sector; however, little is known about which characteristics and skills enable them to play that role. Furthermore, previous studies have measured only individual champions' responses to personal attributes without incorporating input from other observers. A mixed-methods study was conducted to identify, analyze, and group the behaviors and characteristics of champions who have successfully promoted the adoption of new initiatives within the health care delivery system, taking into consideration self and peer perspectives. Methods: Using a mixed-methods, cross-sectional triangulation design with a convergence model, quantitative data were collected and analyzed from health care champions (n = 30) and their colleagues (n = 58) from 11 countries using a survey. Every champion and a subset of colleagues (n = 14) also participated in in-depth interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the relationship between champion and colleague responses to survey items; chi-squared tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the differences. Thematic content analysis of qualitative data was used to explore champion-like behaviors and features. Characteristics of champions were categorized using the Transformational Leadership Theory framework. Results: Champions exhibited characteristics that facilitated trust and encouraged motivation among their colleagues to adopt innovations, such as being intrinsically motivated, persistent, enthusiastic, and highly effective communicators. Champions were described by their colleagues as empathetic, curious, physically present, approachable, and often soliciting feedback from others. Although there was a high degree of agreement between champion and colleague survey responses, champions were more likely to underrate their skills and abilities to instigate change compared to their colleagues. Conclusion: Both champions and colleagues described key champion-like characteristics, but champions often downplayed the characteristics and behaviors that make champions uniquely effective at facilitating the adoption of evidence-based interventions. Plan language abstract: Health care champions are people who promote the adoption of new initiatives to improve the quality of patient care among their colleagues within health care settings. Champions are often viewed by organizational leaders and researchers as critical for the successful implementation of new ideas; however, little is known about what specific skills or characteristics make them effective at promoting the adoption of new ideas among their colleagues. Most studies on champions' behaviors have only included the perspectives of champions, and not perspectives from others within the organization. The goal of our study was to not only explore champions' perspectives of themselves, but also the views of champions' colleagues to understand why and how champions motivated and influenced their colleagues to try new things. Findings from this study could lead to more accurate identification of health care champions, which in turn could lead to more efficient and effective adoption of new initiatives to improve the quality of patient care.

Who's your coach? The relationship between coach characteristics and birth attendants' adherence to the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist.

Background: Research demonstrates that coaching is an effective method for promoting behavior change, yet little is known about which attributes of a coach make them more or less effective. This post hoc, sub-analysis of the BetterBirth trial used observational data to explore whether specific coaches' and team leaders' characteristics were associated with improved adherence to essential birth practices listed on the World Health Organization Safe Childbirth Checklist. Methods: A descriptive analysis was conducted on the coach characteristics from the 50 BetterBirth coaches and team leaders. Data on adherence to essential birth practices by birth attendants who received coaching were collected by independent observers. Bivariate linear regression models were constructed, accounting for clustering by site, to examine the association between coach characteristics and attendants' adherence to practices.  Results: All of the coaches were female and the majority were nurses. Team leaders were comprised of both males and females; half had clinical backgrounds. There was no association between coaches' or team leaders' characteristics, namely gender, type of degree, or years of clinical training, and attendants' adherence to essential birth practices. However, a significant inverse relationship was detected between the coach or team leader's age and years of experience and the birth attendants' adherence to the checklist.  Conclusion: Younger, less experienced coaches were more successful in promoting essential birth practices adherence in this population. More data is needed to fully understand the relationship between coaches and birth attendants.

Sexually transmitted infections in pregnancy.

Sexually transmitted infections (STI) occur during pregnancy and can have serious consequences for women and infants. National guidelines include recommendations for STI screening in all pregnant women; however women continue to be underscreened, and risks related to infection during pregnancy persist. Nurses caring for women of childbearing age should be aware of screening guidelines and approaches for testing. This column reviews two recent studies: The first examines compliance with recommended prenatal STI testing and the second highlights a novel concept to reduce the female-gender-specific approach to STI testing during pregnancy.