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.

Use of Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Healthy Weight, Nutrition, and Physical Activity in Community Health Improvement Plans from Large Local Health Departments.

We sought to identify evidence-based healthy weight, nutrition, and physical activity strategies related to obesity prevention in large local health department (LHD) Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIPs). We analyzed the content of the most recent, publicly available plans from 72 accredited LHDs serving a population of at least 500 000 people. We matched CHIP strategies to the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps' What Works for Health (WWFH) database of interventions. We identified 739 strategies across 55 plans, 62.5% of which matched a "WWFH intervention" rated for effectiveness on diet and exercise outcomes. Among the 20 most commonly identified WWFH interventions in CHIPs, 10 had the highest evidence for effectiveness while 4 were rated as likely to decrease health disparities according to WWFH. Future prioritization of strategies by health agencies could focus on strategies with the strongest evidence for promoting healthy weight, nutrition, and physical activity outcomes and reducing health disparities.

Patient Perspectives of the Hospital Discharge Process: A Qualitative Study.

Care transitions after hospitalization require communication across care teams, patients, and caregivers. As part of a quality improvement initiative, we conducted qualitative interviews with a diverse group of 53 patients who were recently discharged from a hospitalization within a safety net hospital to explore how patient preferences were included in the hospital discharge process and differences in the hospital discharge experience by race/ethnicity. Four themes emerged from participants regarding desired characteristics of interactions with the discharge team: (1) to feel heard, (2) inclusion in decision-making, (3) to be adequately prepared to care for themselves at home through bedside teaching, (4) and to have a clear and updated discharge timeline. Additionally, participants identified patient-level factors the discharge planning team should consider, including the social context, family involvement, health literacy, and linguistic barriers. Lastly, participants identified provider characteristics, such as a caring and empathetic bedside manner, that they found valuable in the discharge process. Our findings highlight the need for shared decision-making in the discharge planning process to improve both patient safety and satisfaction.

A multisite exploration of the association between critical care implementation factors and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

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.

Stakeholder engagement in developing a father-inclusive early life obesity prevention intervention: First Heroes.

BACKGROUND: Although paternal involvement in the perinatal period is associated with benefits for maternal-child health and reduced obesity risk, fathers are seldom included in perinatal or obesity prevention efforts. Engaging community leaders and fathers as stakeholders in intervention development is a critical step in designing a father-inclusive intervention that is efficacious and responsive to their needs. METHODS: We conducted a structured engagement study, including community stakeholder engagement and qualitative interviews with new fathers, to inform the development of a prospective randomized controlled trial that includes mothers and fathers as equal partners in infant obesity prevention. We interpreted stakeholder feedback through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework. RESULTS: Between September 2019 and April 2020, we held a Community Engagement meeting, formed a Community Advisory Board, and conducted 16 qualitative interviews with new fathers. Stakeholder engagement revealed insights across CFIR domains including intervention characteristics (relative advantage, complexity, design quality & packaging), outer setting factors (cosmopolitanism and culture), individual characteristics (including self-efficacy, state of change, identification with the organization) and process (engagement and adaptation). Stakeholders discussed the diverse challenges and rewards of fatherhood, as well as the intrinsic paternal motivation to be a loving, supportive father and partner. Both community leaders and fathers emphasized the importance of tailoring program delivery and content to meet specific parental needs, including a focus on the social-emotional needs of new parents. CONCLUSIONS: A structured process of multidimensional stakeholder engagement was successful in improving the design of a father-inclusive perinatal obesity prevention interventions. Father engagement was instrumental in both reinforcing community ties and increasing our understanding of fathers' needs, resulting in improvements to program values, delivery strategies, personnel, and content. This study provides a practical approach for investigators looking to involve key stakeholders in the pre-implementation phase of intervention development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04477577 . Registered 20 July 2020.