R van Zelm1, E Coeckelberghs2, W Sermeus3, A Wolthuis3, L Bruyneel2, M Panella4, K Vanhaecht2,5. 1. Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. ruben.vanzelm@kuleuven.be. 2. Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Depertment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piemonte (UPO), Novarra, Italy. 5. Department of Quality, Academic Policy Advisor, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specific factors that facilitate or prevent the implementation of enhanced recovery protocols for colorectal cancer surgery have been described in previous qualitative studies. This study aims to perform a concurrent qualitative and quantitative evaluation of factors associated with successful implementation of a care pathway (CP) for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS: This comparative mixed methods multiple case study was based on a sample of 10 hospitals in 4 European countries that implemented a specific CP and performed pre- and post-implementation measurements. In-depth post-implementation interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who were directly involved. Primary outcomes included protocol adherence and improvement rate. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and self-rated protocol adherence. The hospitals were ranked based on these quantitative findings, and those with the highest and lowest scores were included in this study. Qualitative data were summarized on a per-case basis using extended Normalization Process Theory (eNPT) as theoretical framework. The data were then combined and analyzed using joint display methodology. RESULTS: Data from 381 patients and 30 healthcare professionals were included. Mean protocol adherence rate increased from 56 to 62% and mean LOS decreased by 2.1 days. Both measures varied greatly between hospitals. The two highest-ranking hospitals and the three lowest-ranking hospitals were included as cases. Factors which could explain the differences in pre- and post-implementation performance included the degree to which the CP was integrated into daily practice, the level of experience and support for CP methodology provided to the improvement team, the intrinsic motivation of the team, shared goals and the degree of management support, alignment of CP development and hospital strategy, and participation of relevant disciplines, most notably, physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Overall improvement was achieved but was highly variable among the 5 hospitals evaluated. Specific factors involved in the implementation process that may be contributing to these differences were conceptualized using eNPT. Multidisciplinary teams intending to implement a CP should invest in shared goals and teamwork and focus on integration of the CP into daily processes. Support from hospital management directed specifically at quality improvement including audit may likewise facilitate the implementation process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02965794 . US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov . Registered 4 August 2014.
BACKGROUND: Specific factors that facilitate or prevent the implementation of enhanced recovery protocols for colorectal cancer surgery have been described in previous qualitative studies. This study aims to perform a concurrent qualitative and quantitative evaluation of factors associated with successful implementation of a care pathway (CP) for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS: This comparative mixed methods multiple case study was based on a sample of 10 hospitals in 4 European countries that implemented a specific CP and performed pre- and post-implementation measurements. In-depth post-implementation interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who were directly involved. Primary outcomes included protocol adherence and improvement rate. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and self-rated protocol adherence. The hospitals were ranked based on these quantitative findings, and those with the highest and lowest scores were included in this study. Qualitative data were summarized on a per-case basis using extended Normalization Process Theory (eNPT) as theoretical framework. The data were then combined and analyzed using joint display methodology. RESULTS: Data from 381 patients and 30 healthcare professionals were included. Mean protocol adherence rate increased from 56 to 62% and mean LOS decreased by 2.1 days. Both measures varied greatly between hospitals. The two highest-ranking hospitals and the three lowest-ranking hospitals were included as cases. Factors which could explain the differences in pre- and post-implementation performance included the degree to which the CP was integrated into daily practice, the level of experience and support for CP methodology provided to the improvement team, the intrinsic motivation of the team, shared goals and the degree of management support, alignment of CP development and hospital strategy, and participation of relevant disciplines, most notably, physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Overall improvement was achieved but was highly variable among the 5 hospitals evaluated. Specific factors involved in the implementation process that may be contributing to these differences were conceptualized using eNPT. Multidisciplinary teams intending to implement a CP should invest in shared goals and teamwork and focus on integration of the CP into daily processes. Support from hospital management directed specifically at quality improvement including audit may likewise facilitate the implementation process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02965794 . US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov . Registered 4 August 2014.
Entities:
Keywords:
Care pathway; Enhanced recovery; Extended normalization process theory (eNPT); Implementation; Mixed methods case study; Process evaluation
Authors: Ruben van Zelm; Ellen Coeckelberghs; Walter Sermeus; Anthony De Buck van Overstraeten; Arved Weimann; Deborah Seys; Massimiliano Panella; Kris Vanhaecht Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: U O Gustafsson; M J Scott; M Hubner; J Nygren; N Demartines; N Francis; T A Rockall; T M Young-Fadok; A G Hill; M Soop; H D de Boer; R D Urman; G J Chang; A Fichera; H Kessler; F Grass; E E Whang; W J Fawcett; F Carli; D N Lobo; K E Rollins; A Balfour; G Baldini; B Riedel; O Ljungqvist Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Magdalena Pisarska; Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Małczak; Piotr Major; Sebastian Ochenduszko; Anna Zub-Pokrowiecka; Jan Kulawik; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2016-11-19 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Alexander B. Stone; Christina T. Yuan; Michael A. Rosen; Michael C. Grant; Lauren E. Benishek; Elizabeth Hanahan; Lisa H. Lubomski; Clifford Ko; Elizabeth C. Wick Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Saba Balvardi; Nicolò Pecorelli; Tanya Castelino; Petru Niculiseanu; A Sender Liberman; Patrick Charlebois; Barry Stein; Franco Carli; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Dionne S Kringos; Rosa Sunol; Cordula Wagner; Russell Mannion; Philippe Michel; Niek S Klazinga; Oliver Groene Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jon Banks; Lesley Wye; Nicola Hall; James Rooney; Fiona M Walter; Willie Hamilton; Ardiana Gjini; Greg Rubin Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2017-12-13