Theory and practical guidance for effective de-implementation of practices across health and care services: a realist synthesis

C. Burton, L. Williams, T. Bucknall, Denise Fisher, Beth Hall, Gill Harris, Peter Jones, Matthew Makin, A. Mcbride, R. Meacock, J. Parkinson, J. Rycroft-Malone, J. Waring
{"title":"Theory and practical guidance for effective de-implementation of practices across health and care services: a realist synthesis","authors":"C. Burton, L. Williams, T. Bucknall, Denise Fisher, Beth Hall, Gill Harris, Peter Jones, Matthew Makin, A. Mcbride, R. Meacock, J. Parkinson, J. Rycroft-Malone, J. Waring","doi":"10.3310/HSDR09020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background \nHealth-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur. \n \nObjectives \nOur objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation. \n \nDesign \nA realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders. \n \nParticipants \nIn total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews. \n \nData sources \nUsing keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence. \n \nResults \nThe concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success. \n \nLimitations \nSome specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies. \n \nConclusions \nThis review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner. \n \nStudy registration \nThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030. \n \nFunding \nThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"1-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/HSDR09020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background Health-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur. Objectives Our objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation. Design A realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders. Participants In total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews. Data sources Using keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence. Results The concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success. Limitations Some specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies. Conclusions This review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
在卫生和保健服务部门有效地取消执行做法的理论和实践指导:现实主义综合
背景全球各地的医疗保健系统面临着越来越大的压力,需要在有效利用资源的同时提供高质量的护理。对以证据为基础的服务有更高的要求,但临床有效性或成本效益有限的做法仍然存在。目标我们的目标包括完成对取消实施的概念分析,通过利益相关者的参与,提出与取消实施相关的决策过程,并生成一个基于证据的现实主义计划理论,即“什么在取消实施中有效”。设计使用迭代利益相关者驱动的四阶段方法进行现实主义综合。第一阶段涉及界定文献范围和进行利益相关者访谈,以发展概念分析和初步计划理论。在第二阶段,对证据进行了系统的搜索,以测试和发展这一以偶然关系形式表达的理论。这些被表示为情境-机制-结果,以显示特定的情境或条件如何触发产生结果的机制。第三阶段包括通过利益相关者访谈来验证和完善方案理论。最后阶段(即第4阶段)为服务领导者制定了可操作的建议。参与者共有31名利益相关者(即用户/患者代表、临床经理、专员)参加了焦点小组和电话访谈。数据来源使用范围界定工作和概念分析期间确定的关键词,于2018年5月对书目数据库进行了搜索。搜索的数据库是Cochrane图书馆、Campbell Collaboration、MEDLINE(通过EBSCOhost)、护理和相关健康文献累积索引(通过EBSCOhost)、国家卫生研究所期刊图书馆和以下通过ProQuest平台的数据库:应用社会科学索引和摘要、社会服务摘要,国际社会科学书目,社会科学数据库和社会学摘要。MEDLINE数据库在2018年5月至2018年12月期间设置了警报。在网上搜索灰色文献,并使用滚雪球技术来识别证据集群。结果概念分析表明,随着时间的推移,取消实施与五个主要组成部分有关:(1)正在取消实施的内容,(2)推动取消实施的问题,(3)取消实施的行动特征,(4)取消实施是有计划的或机会主义的程度,以及(5)取消执行的后果。综合了42篇论文,确定了六种情境-机制-结果配置,重点关注从个人行为到组织程序等问题。目前的制度可能使包括低价值治疗在内的习惯性决策做法长期存在。电子健康记录可以被设计为隐藏或删除选择选项中的低价值治疗,突出最佳证据。专业人员可以通过增加对低价值实践行为的关注来了解他们的决策策略。诊断的不确定性或患者对某些治疗的期望为“警惕等待”提供了机会,这是一种积极的策略,可以减少不适当的调查和处方。临床医生-患者关系的情感成分可能会限制取消实施的机会,需要通过多模式的教育干预提供专业支持。政策、公众和专业观点之间的充分一致性是取消执行成功的必要条件。局限性一些特定的临床问题(如取消处方)主导了取消实施的证据基础,这可能会限制合成结果的可转移性。任何现实主义调查都会产生本质上是累积的结果,应该通过进一步的调查来发展,将来源范围扩展到例如临床研究和进一步的实证研究。结论这项审查有助于我们理解如何通过干预措施提高专业决策的责任感,并突出整个系统的取消执行方法,在医疗服务中改善低价值程序和服务的取消执行。鉴于取消执行的整个系统背景,将需要一系列不同的传播战略,以不同的方式与不同的利益攸关方接触,及时改变做法和政策。研究注册本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42017081030。资助该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务与交付研究》上全文发表;第9卷第2期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信