Search results

The aim of this project was to compare the intentions with reported action of health Trusts in Scotland to prioritise and implement published SIGN clinical guidelines. All health Trusts in Scotland were asked about plans for implementation, and resurveyed 15‐18 months later for confirmation. Specific guideline implementation groups led by medical doctors were the most common implementation structure. Implementation usually consisted of baseline audit, development of a local version, and reaudit. In one case a successful link between acute and primary care through an area level GP audit facilitator was thought to increase implementation. More research is required to: find out what influences the ability of an organisation to implement guidelines; identify particular facilitating factors or barriers; and on factors influencing the ability of a health organisation to implement guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly being recognised as integral to the clinical effectiveness agenda. According to the recent Scottish White Paper, Scotland “leads the way in clinical effectiveness”. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), established in 1993, has produced over 20 clinical practice guidelines, and plans to produce at least as many more, while reviewing existing guidelines at a minimum of every two years. This represents a substantial investment of NHS resources. This paper investigates whether this investment is being recouped in Scottish NHS acute trusts via the implementation of SIGN guidelines, and whether their implementation is being audited properly. It is argued that without clinical audit, guideline implementation is unlikely to succeed. This has important ramifications for the implementation of clinical governance.

Presents a study which investigates how it was planned to implement guidelines from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The study aimed to describe the activity in planning the implementation of SIGN guidelines in Scottish Health Service Trusts in 1996, and to provide a baseline for evaluation. A postal questionnaire was sent to the Clinical Audit lead person in 46 Scottish Health Service Trusts. The response rate after two reminders ranged from 60‐72 per cent across different categories of Trust. The questionnaire asked for plans to implement individual guidelines, adaptation, professions involved, timeframes, dissemination, and evaluation methods. Reveals that local consensus was the main factor in deciding priorities. Most Trusts wished to see other local versions of guidelines produced, and to evaluate implementation collaboratively. Most expected to have reviewed baseline practice before implementation.

This paper describes the implementation of a clinical guideline across three acute Trusts. A Clinical Effectiveness Steering Group identified prevention of venous thromboembolism as a health priority. A local guideline development group adapted the recommendations of an existing review and produced a local guideline. Then, a multidisciplinary implementation group developed the practical aspects of implementing guidelines into routine daily practice. They identified appropriate staff to carry out risk assessment and to administer appropriate prophylaxis, as necessary. They also produced a “guideline pack” containing a training resource manual and implementation aids. Following this a multiple strategy implementation programme was used to introduce the guidelines, and an evaluation was carried out eight to ten months after the introduction of the guidelines. The evaluation identified a number of areas for improving current practice. Guideline implementation is a complex, time‐consuming process.

This article aims to review the available literature on how clinicians meet the daily challenge of translating medical information into clinical EBM. It also seeks to describe the procedures involved in a local initiative in the UK to develop software applications for implementation of national clinical guidelines to enhance EBM in routine clinical practice.

It was hypothesised that improved access to these guidelines in routine clinical practice could be achieved through integrated local procedures, thereby enhancing the quality of care provided to children and adolescents with asthma or UTI. A literature search was performed using databases. To explore the preferences of the doctors and other healthcare professionals on how they accessed clinical guidelines, feedback was obtained. Stepwise implementation of the clinical guidelines was instituted over a period of three years in different primary care and hospital settings.

The professionals actively engaged with all the different stages in the implementation of the clinical guidelines. The majority preferred the interactive computerized system based on its ease of use, better aesthetic features, familiarity with the software and limited dependence on the technical skills of the users.

The limitations of this study include lack of systematic data to assess the clinical effectiveness of the guidelines' implementation. Another apparent limitation of the study is the small size of participants within the paediatric unit of each organisation where the study was conducted.

There is a need for further comparative studies between the local intervention strategies described in this study and other implementation strategies, to identify the most effective implementation methods for electronic guideline‐based systems.

Reliable high quality guidelines from reputable professional bodies could be successfully implemented at the primary or hospital‐based levels through a series of coordinated multidisciplinary interactive processes. This study has positive implications for improving the quality of care provided to children and adolescents, enhancing the role of clinical governance, provision of useful information to patients/carers and other healthcare providers.

This study highlights a potentially effective way of implementing and integrating an electronic guideline‐based computer system into local practice.

This paper describes the implementation of a clinical guideline across three acute Trusts. A Clinical Effectiveness Steering Group identified prevention of venous thromboembolism as a health priority. A local guideline development group adapted the recommendations of an existing review and produced a local guideline. Then, a multidisciplinary implementation group developed the practical aspects of implementing guidelines into routine daily practice. They identified appropriate staff to carry out risk assessment and to administer appropriate prophylaxis, as necessary. They also produced a “guideline pack” containing a training resource manual and implementation aids. Following this a multiple strategy implementation programme was used to introduce the guidelines, and an evaluation was carried out eight to ten months after the introduction of the guidelines. The evaluation identified a number of areas for improving current practice. Guideline implementation is a complex, time‐consuming process.

There is evidence that some strategies for guideline implementation are more successful than others. This paper aims to describe the process of developing an evidence‐based guideline implementation strategy for use in rural emergency departments.

Participation in a nationally funded, research fellowship program involved attendance at workshops run by internationally renowned experts in the field of knowledge translation. Attendance at these workshops, associated reading and a literature review allowed those implementation strategies with the most supportive evidence of effectiveness to be determined.

A multi‐faceted implementation strategy was developed. This strategy involved the use of an implementation team as well as addressing issues surrounding individual clinicians, the “emergency department team”, the physical structure and processes of the ED and the culture of the department as a whole. Reminders, audit and feedback, education, the use of opinion leaders, and evidence‐based formatting of guidelines were all integral to the process.

It is postulated that an evidence‐based implementation strategy will lead to greater changes in clinician behaviour than other strategies used in quality improvement projects.

This is an important article as it describes the concept and development of evidence‐based interventions, which, if tailored to the individual hospital (as evidence‐based medicine is tailored to the individual patient), has the potential to improve compliance with clinical guidelines beyond that achieved with most QI projects.

Clinical guidelines aim to disseminate evidence and thus to change behaviour. This process is complex and needs a coherent approach. Aims to develop a model for implementing clinical guidelines in primary care and thus influencing prescribing by general practitioners (GPs). A total of 25 semi‐structured interviews were conducted with GPs and primary care academics. To enrich the model an ongoing literature review of guideline implementation and changing prescribing behaviour was used. A simple model was derived to guide primary care organisations and GPs in implementing guidelines for prescribing, which comprises six steps: choose the condition; choose the guideline; identify influential people; identify organisational factors; plan and adopt an implementation strategy; and monitor the resulting adherence. The model provides a framework for planning the implementation of guidelines, and recognising barriers that hinder adherence to guidelines. It may help to explain why clinical guidelines vary in their uptake.

The British Columbia Ministry of Health’s Clinical Care Management initiative was used as a case study to better understand large-scale change (LSC) within BC’s health system. Using a complex system framework, the purpose of this paper is to examine mechanisms that enable and constrain the implementation of clinical guidelines across various clinical settings.

Researchers applied a general model of complex adaptive systems plus two specific conceptual frameworks (realist evaluation and system dynamics mapping) to define and study enablers and constraints. Focus group sessions and interviews with clinicians, executives, managers and board members were validated through an online survey.

The functional themes for managing large-scale clinical change included: creating a context to prepare clinicians for health system transformation initiatives; promoting shared clinical leadership; strengthening knowledge management, strategic communications and opportunities for networking; and clearing pathways through the complexity of a multilevel, dynamic system.

The action research methodology was designed to guide continuing improvement of implementation. A sample of initiatives was selected; it was not intended to compare and contrast facilitators and barriers across all initiatives and regions. Similarly, evaluating the results or process of guideline implementation was outside the scope; the methods were designed to enable conversations at multiple levels – policy, management and practice – about how to improve implementation. The study is best seen as a case study of LSC, offering a possible model for replication by others and a tool to shape further dialogue.

Recommended action-oriented strategies included engaging local champions; supporting local adaptation for implementation of clinical guidelines; strengthening local teams to guide implementation; reducing change fatigue; ensuring adequate resources; providing consistent communication especially for front-line care providers; and supporting local teams to demonstrate the clinical value of the guidelines to their colleagues.

Bringing a complex systems perspective to clinical guideline implementation resulted in a clear understanding of the challenges involved in LSC.

Presents a study which investigates how it was planned to implement guidelines from the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network (SIGN). The study aimed to describe the activity in planning the implementation of SIGN guidelines in Scottish Health Service Trusts in 1996, and to provide a baseline for evaluation. A postal questionnaire was sent to the Clinical Audit lead person in 46 Scottish Health Service Trusts. The response rate after two reminders ranged from 60‐72 per cent across different categories of Trust. The questionnaire asked for plans to implement individual guidelines, adaptation, professions involved, timeframes, dissemination, and evaluation methods. Reveals that local consensus was the main factor in deciding priorities. Most Trusts wished to see other local versions of guidelines produced, and to evaluate implementation collaboratively. Most expected to have reviewed baseline practice before implementation.