Using Implementation Science to Promote the Use of the G8 Screening Tool in Geriatric Oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence supports the integration of geriatric assessment in the care of older adults with cancer. The G8 screening tool is a validated instrument to target a geriatric assessment. Use of the G8 tool in clinical practice, however, is suboptimal. We systematically analyzed the barriers and facilitators to G8 tool use in oncology clinics and selected interventions tailored to the local context to enhance its uptake. DESIGN: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews and site observations. SETTING: St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Ten participants including G8 tool adopters and stakeholders at St. Michael's Hospital were interviewed. MEASUREMENTS: An interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed to identify beliefs about G8 tool use. Barriers and facilitators to G8 tool use were mapped to the TDF domains and corresponding intervention functions from the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior model. Evidence-based implementation strategies were selected from two databases. RESULTS: Key TDF domains influencing G8 tool use behavior were social/professional role, goals, beliefs about consequences, and social influences. The behavior change domains were mapped to four mechanisms of change: persuasion (conduct local consensus discussions), modeling (identify and prepare a champion), education (distribute educational materials), and enablement (use materials to prepare patients to be active participants in understanding the evidence behind the G8 tool and answering questions accurately). CONCLUSION: This study identified barriers to G8 tool use. Local consensus discussions, identifying and preparing a champion, using educational materials, and preparing patients to be active participants may be implementation strategies to improve G8 tool use. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:898-904, 2019.

Organizational Factors Contributing to Incivility at an Academic Medical Center and Systems-Based Solutions: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: A rise in incivility has been documented in medicine, with implications for patient care, organizational effectiveness, and costs. This study explored organizational factors that may contribute to incivility at one academic medical center and potential systems-level solutions to combat it. METHOD: The authors completed semistructured individual interviews with full-time faculty members of the Department of Medicine (DOM) at the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, with clinical appointments at six affiliated hospitals, between June and September 2016. They asked about participants' experiences with incivility, potential contributing factors, and possible solutions. Two analysts independently coded a portion of the transcripts until a framework was developed with excellent agreement within the research team, as signified by the Kappa coefficient. A single coder completed analysis of the remaining transcripts. RESULTS: Forty-nine interviews with physicians from all university ranks and academic position descriptions were completed. All participants had collegial relationships with colleagues but had observed, heard of, or been personally affected by uncivil behavior. Incivility occurred furtively, face-to-face, or online. The participants identified several organizational factors that bred incivility including physician nonemployee status in hospitals, silos within the DOM, poor leadership, a culture of silence, and the existence of power cliques. They offered many systems-level solutions to combat incivility through prevention, improved reporting, and clearer consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Existing strategies to combat incivility have focused on modifying individual behavior, but opportunities may exist to reduce incivility through a greater understanding of the role of health care organizations in shaping workplace culture.

Impact of the Canadian Diabetes Association guideline dissemination strategy on clinician knowledge and behaviour change outcomes.

AIM: Implementation of clinical practice guideline (CPG) into clinical practice remains limited. Using the Knowledge-To-Action framework, a guideline dissemination and implementation strategy for the Canadian Diabetes Association's 2013 CPG was developed and launched to clinicians and people with diabetes. METHODS: The RE-AIM framework guided evaluation of this strategy clinician; we report here one aspect of the effectiveness dimension using mixed methods. We measured impact of the strategy on clinican knowledge and behaviour change constructs using evaluation forms, national online survey and individual interviews. RESULTS: After attending a lecture, clinician confidence (n = 915) increased (3.7(SD 0.7) to 4.5 (SD 0.6) on a 5-point scale (p < 0.001)), with 55% (n = 505) intending to make a practice change (e.g. clinical management regarding glycemic control). Ninety-four percent of survey respondents (n = 907) were aware of the guidelines, attributed to communications from professional associations, continuing professional development events, and colleagues. Forty to 98% of respondents (total n 462-485) were correct in their interpretation of CPG messages, and 33-65%(total n 351-651) reported that they had made changes to their practice. Interviews with 28 clinicians revealed that organizational credibility, online access to tools, clarity of tool content, and education sessions facilitated uptake; lack of time, team-based consensus, and seamless integration into care and patient complexity were barriers. CONCLUSION: The complexity of diabetes care requires systemic adoption of organization of care interventions, including interprofessional collaboration and consensus. Augmenting our strategy to include scalable models for professional development, integration of guidelines into electronic medical records, and expansion of our target audience to include health care teams and patients, may optimize guideline uptake.