View clinical trials related to Implementation Science.
Filter by:One of the most important obstacles to improving end-of-life care is the inability of clinicians to reliably identify those who are approaching the end-of-life. Every aspect of a palliative approach to care - screening for unmet needs, treating symptoms, discussing goals of care, and developing a palliative management plan - depends on the reliable and accurate identification of patients with palliative needs. The investigators developed an accurate and reliable mortality prediction tool that automatically identifies patients in hospital at elevated risk of death in the coming year. In previous studies it has been shown that these patients also frequently have unmet palliative care needs at the time they are identified by the tool. This tool has been demonstrated feasible, acceptable to patients and providers, and effective for changing physician behaviour in an inpatient clinical context. In this project, this tool is implemented as part of an integrated knowledge translation project to facilitate reliable and timely identification of unmet palliative needs across multiple hospitals with different clinical settings and contexts. The investigators have partnered with 12 hospitals to improve the quality of palliative and end-of-life care provided to patients and families. With each partner site the investigators will develop a comprehensive implementation plan, including stakeholder engagement, education, and feedback. Process measures will be collected at each site to determine whether the tool was effective for promoting the identification and documentation of unmet palliative needs. Patients who were identified by the tool will also be followed over time to collect outcome and impact measures to see if their end-of-life care was affected by the intervention compared to control groups.
The De-imFAR study is a two phase study that aims to carry out and test a structured, evidence-based and theory informed process involving the main stakeholders (managers, professionals, patients and researches) for the design, deployment, and evaluation of targeted de-implementation strategies for reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Specifically, the targeted low-value practice of the DE-imFAR study is the pharmacological prescription of statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low-risk patients. In order to prevent CVD, one of the leading causes of morbidity and death worldwide, there is general agreement on the indication of lipid-lowering treatment, mainly with statins, in patients with a cardiovascular risk (CVR) measurement greater than 10% over 10 years or in secondary prevention. Whereas, for primary prevention in patients with low CVR (<10%), preventive activities should be focused on the promotion of healthy lifestyles through optimizing diet, increasing physical activity, and stopping smoking. Aims 1. Phase I: To design and model in a collegiate way among the agents involved (professionals, patients, managers and researchers) de-implementation strategies to favour the reduction and / or abandonment of low-value prescription of lipid-lowering drugs in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. This strategy will be designed using systematic, comprehensive frameworks based on theory and evidence for the design of implementation strategies - the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW), focused on addressing the main determinants (barriers and facilitators) of clinical practice of primary prevention of CVD and adapted to the specific context of primary care in Osakidetza-Basque Health System 2. Phase II: To evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of several de-implementation strategies derived from the systematic process of identification of determinants and mapping of adapted intervention strategies with the TDF/BCW frameworks: a strategy based on providing evidence-based information communication technology tools to help and guide decision-making (a non-reflective decision assistance strategy); a decision information strategy based on the dissemination of the evidence concerning CVD primary prevention framed in a corporate campaign encouraging family physicians to move away from PIP (a both reflective and non-reflective decision information strategy) ; and a reflective decision structure strategy encouraging reflection on actual performance based on an audit/feedback system (A reflective decision structure strategy). Hypothesis Professionals exposed to the de-implementation strategies derived from the systematic process of identification of determinants and mapping of adapted intervention strategies with the TDF/BCW frameworks, will be effective in reducing and/or abandoning the prescription of statins in primary prevention of CVD. Among the evaluated de-implementation strategies, those that encourage self-reflection on actual performance will obtain the largest effects as compared to non-reflective strategies. Design Phase I formative research to design and model de-implementation strategies and Phase II effectiveness and feasibility evaluation through a cluster randomized implementation trial with an additional control group. Phase I formative research will include the following actions: Cross-sectional observational study of low value pharmacological prescription in the primary prevention of CVD; Literature review on the determinants of low value pharmacological prescription behaviour and effective intervention strategies; Qualitative study on the determinants of low value pharmacological prescription in primary prevention of CVD; Collegiate mapping of the de-implementation strategies; Selection of de-implementation strategies based in perceived effectiveness and feasibility. During Phase II, the evaluation of several de-implementation strategies produced through the phase I formative evaluation will be conducted. A mixed method evaluation will be used: quantitative for assessing the implementation results at the professional level and qualitative for assessing the feasibility and perceived impact of the de-implementation strategies from the family physicians' (FPs) perspective and the experience and satisfaction of patients concerning the clinical care received.