Leti van Bodegom-Vos

Implementation and de-implementation: two sides of the same coin?

Avoiding low value care received increasing attention in many countries, as with the Choosing Wisely campaign and other initiatives to abandon care that wastes resources or delivers no benefit to patients. While an extensive literature characterises approaches to implementing evidence-based care, we have limited understanding of the process of de-implementation, such as abandoning existing low value practices. To learn more about the differences between implementation and de-implementation, we explored the literature and analysed data from two published studies (one implementation and one de-implementation) by the same orthopaedic surgeons. We defined ‘leaders’ as those orthopaedic surgeons who implemented, or de-implemented, the target processes of care and laggards as those who did not. Our findings suggest that leaders in implementation share some characteristics with leaders in de-implementation when comparing them with laggards, such as more open to new evidence, younger and less time in clinical practice. However, leaders in de-implementation and implementation differed in some other characteristics and were not the same persons. Thus, leading in implementation or de-implementation may depend to some degree on the type of intervention rather than entirely reflecting personal characteristics. De-implementation seemed to be hampered by motivational factors such as department priorities, and economic and political factors such as cost-benefit considerations in care delivery, whereas organisational factors were associated only with implementation. The only barrier or facilitator common to both implementation and de-implementation consisted of outcome expectancy (ie, the perceived net benefit to patients). Future studies need to test the hypotheses generated from this study and improve our understanding of differences between the processes of implementation and de-implementation in the people who are most likely to lead (or resist) these efforts.

Cell Salvage in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND Cell salvage is used to reduce allogeneic red blood-cell (RBC) transfusions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of cell salvage to reduce transfusions in THA and TKA separately, and to examine whether recent trials change the conclusions from previous meta-analyses. METHODS We searched MEDLINE through January 2013 for randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of cell salvage in THA and TKA. Trial results were extracted using standardized forms and pooled using a random-effects model. Methodological quality of the trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaborations tool for risk-of-bias assessment. RESULTS Forty-three trials (5631 patients) were included. Overall, cell salvage reduced the exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion in THA (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.85) and TKA (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.68). However, trials published in 2010 to 2012, with a lower risk of bias, showed no significant effect of cell salvage in THA (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.02) and TKA (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.31), suggesting that the treatment policy regarding transfusion may have changed over time. CONCLUSIONS Looking at all trials, cell salvage still significantly reduced the RBC exposure rate and the volume of RBCs transfused in both THA and TKA. However, in trials published more recently (2010 to 2012), cell salvage reduced neither the exposure rate nor the volume of RBCs transfused in THA and TKA, most likely explained by changes in blood transfusion management.

Barriers and facilitators to implement shared decision making in multidisciplinary sciatica care: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe Dutch multidisciplinary sciatica guideline recommends that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and the patient together decide on surgical or prolonged conservative treatment (shared decision making [SDM]). Despite this recommendation, SDM is not yet integrated in sciatica care. Existing literature concerning barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation mainly focuses on one discipline only, whereas multidisciplinary care may involve other barriers and facilitators, or make these more complex for both professionals and patients. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by patients and professionals for SDM implementation in multidisciplinary sciatica care.MethodsWe conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with professionals involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons) and three focus groups among patients (six to eight per group). The interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were classified according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The software package Atlas.ti 7.0 was used for analysis.ResultsProfessionals reported 53 barriers and 5 facilitators, and patients 35 barriers and 18 facilitators for SDM in sciatica care. Professionals perceived most barriers at the level of the organizational context, and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Patients reported most barriers and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Several barriers and facilitators correspond with barriers and facilitators found in the literature (e.g., lack of time, motivation) but also new barriers and facilitators were identified. Many of these new barriers mentioned by both professionals and patients were related to the multidisciplinary setting, such as lack of visibility, lack of trust in expertise of other disciplines, and lack of communication between disciplines.ConclusionsThis study identified barriers and facilitators for SDM in the multidisciplinary sciatica setting, by both professionals and patients. It is clear that more barriers than facilitators are perceived for implementation of SDM in sciatica care. Newly identified barriers and facilitators are related to the multidisciplinary care setting. Therefore, an effective implementation strategy of SDM in a multidisciplinary setting such as in sciatica care should focus on these barriers and facilitators.

Perceived barriers among physicians for stopping non–cost‐effective blood‐saving measures in total hip and total knee arthroplasties

Despite evidence that the blood‐saving measures (BSMs) erythropoietin (EPO) and intra‐ and postoperative blood salvage are not (cost‐)effective in primary elective total hip and knee arthroplasties, they are used frequently in Dutch hospitals. This study aims to assess the impact of barriers associated with the intention of physicians to stop BSMs.

A Qualitative Study of Barriers to the Implementation of a Rheumatoid Arthritis Guideline Among Generalist and Specialist Physical Therapists

Background Although the increasing complexity and expansion of the body of knowledge in physical therapy have led to specialized practice areas to provide better patient care, the impact of specialization on guideline implementation has been scarcely studied. Objectives The objective of this study was to identify the similarities and differences in barriers to the implementation of a Dutch rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guideline by generalist and specialist physical therapists. Design This observational study consisted of 4 focus group interviews in which 24 physical therapists (13 generalist and 11 specialist physical therapists) participated. Methods Physical therapists were asked to discuss barriers to the implementation of the RA guideline. Data were analyzed qualitatively using a directed approach to content analysis. Both the interviews and the interview analysis were informed by a previously developed conceptual framework. Results Besides a number of similarities (eg, lack of time), the present study showed important, although subtle, differences in barriers to the implementation of the RA guideline between generalist physical therapists and specialist physical therapists. Generalist physical therapists more frequently reported difficulties in interpreting the guideline (cognitive barriers) and had less favorable opinions about the guideline (affective barriers) than specialist physical therapists. Specialist physical therapists were hampered by external barriers that are outside the scope of generalist physical therapists, such as a lack of agreement about the roles and responsibilities of medical professionals involved in the care of the same patient. Conclusions The identified differences in barriers to the implementation of the RA guideline indicated that the effectiveness of implementation strategies could be improved by tailoring them to the level of specialization of physical therapists. However, it is expected that tailoring implementation strategies to barriers that hamper both generalist and specialist physical therapists will have a larger effect on the implementation of the RA guideline.

Most Important Factors for the Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Sciatica Care: Ranking among Professionals and Patients

Introduction Due to the increasing specialization of medical professionals, patients are treated by multiple disciplines. To ensure that delivered care is patient-centered, it is crucial that professionals and the patient together decide on treatment (shared decision making (SDM)). However, it is not known how SDM should be integrated in multidisciplinary practice. This study determines the most important factors for SDM implementation in sciatica care, as it is known that a prior inventory of factors is crucial to develop a successful implementation strategy. Methods 246 professionals (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons) (30% response) and 155 patients (96% response) responded to an internet-based survey. Respondents ranked barriers and facilitators identified in previous interviews, on their importance using Maximum Difference Scaling. Feeding back the personal top 5 most important factors, each respondent indicated whether these factors were barriers or facilitators. Hierarchical Bayes estimation was used to estimate the relative importance (RI) of each factor. Results Professionals assigned the highest importance to: quality of professional-patient relationship (RI 4.87; CI 4.75–4.99); importance of quick recovery of patient (RI 4.83; CI 4.69–4.97); and knowledge about treatment options (RI 6.64; CI 4.53–4.74), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Professionals working in primary care had a different ranking than those working in hospital care. Patients assigned the highest importance to: correct diagnosis by professionals (barrier, RI 8.19; CI 7.99–8.38); information provision about treatment options and potential harm and benefits (RI 7.87; CI 7.65–8.08); and explanation of the professional about the care trajectory (RI 7.16; CI 6.94–7.38), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Conclusions Knowledge, information provision and a good relationship are the most important conditions for SDM perceived by both patients and professionals. These conditions are not restricted to one specific disease or health care system, because they are mostly professional or patient dependent and require healthcare professional training.

Frequent use of blood-saving measures in elective orthopaedic surgery: a 2012 Dutch blood management survey

BackgroundBlood loss in hip and knee arthroplasties may necessitate allogeneic blood transfusions. Different blood-saving measures (BSMs) were introduced to reduce these transfusions. Purpose of the present study was to assess the frequency of BSM use, stratified by type and hospital setting of orthopaedic departments in the Netherlands.MethodsAn internet-based questionnaire was sent to all heads of orthopaedic departments of Dutch hospitals and private clinics (n = 99). Questions were asked on how often BSMs were used, reported on a 5-point Likert scale (never, almost never, regularly, almost always, always). In addition there were questions about discontinuation of anticoagulants preoperatively, the number of annually performed arthroplasties (size) and hospital setting.ResultsThe survey was completed by 81 (82%) departments. BSMs used frequently (regularly, almost always, always) were erythropoietine (EPO), with 55 (68%) departments being frequent users; acute normovolemic hemodilution, used frequently in 26 (32%) departments; cell saver in 25 (31%) and postoperative drainage and re-infusion in 56 (69%) departments. When compared by size, frequent EPO use was more common in large departments (with 22 (88%) large departments being frequent users versus 13 (63%) small departments and 16 (55%) intermediate departments, p = 0.03). No differences by size or type were observed for other BSMs.ConclusionsCompared with previous survey’s there is a tremendous increase in use of BSMs. EPO and autologous blood salvage techniques are the most often used modalities. Costs might be saved if use of non-cost-effective BSMs is stopped.

Designing a strategy to implement optimal conservative treatments in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice: a study protocol of the BART-OP study

BackgroundNational and international evidence-based guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis recommend to start with (a combination of) conservative treatments, followed by surgical intervention if a patient does not respond sufficiently to conservative treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that conservative treatments are not optimally used in orthopedic practice. Our study aims to quantify the use of conservative treatments in Dutch orthopedic practice and to explore the barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments that should be taken into account in a strategy to improve the embedding of conservative treatments in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice.MethodsThis study consists of three phases. First, current use of conservative treatments in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis will be explored using an internet-based survey among at least 100 patients to identify the underused conservative treatments. Second, barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments in orthopedic practice will be identified using semi-structured interviews among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 5 patients. The interviews will be followed by an internet-based survey among approximately 450 orthopedic surgeons and at least 100 patients in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results of the previous phases using intervention mapping.DiscussionThe developed strategy is likely to result in an optimal and standardized use of conservative treatment options in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice, because it is focused on identified barriers and facilitators. In addition, the results of this study can be used as an example for optimizing the use of conservative care in other patient groups. In a subsequent study, the developed implementation strategy will be assessed on its effectiveness, feasibility and costs.

De-implementation of expensive blood saving measures in hip and knee arthroplasties: study protocol for the LISBOA-II cluster randomized trial

BackgroundDespite evidence that erythropoietin and intra- and postoperative blood salvage are expensive techniques considered to be non-cost-effective in primary elective total hip and knee arthroplasties in the Netherlands, Dutch medical professionals use them frequently to prevent the need for allogeneic transfusion. To actually change physicians’ practice, a tailored strategy aimed at barriers that hinder physicians in abandoning the use of erythropoietin and perioperative blood salvage was systematically developed. The study aims to examine the effectiveness, feasibility and costs of this tailored de-implementation strategy compared to a control strategy.Methods/DesignA cluster randomized controlled trial including an effect, process and economic evaluation will be conducted in a minimum of 20 Dutch hospitals. Randomisation takes place at hospital level. The hospitals in the intervention group will receive a tailored de-implementation strategy that consists of four components: interactive education, feedback in educational outreach visits, electronically sent reports on hospital performance (all aimed at orthopedic surgeons and anesthesiologists), and information letters or emails aimed at other involved professionals within the intervention hospital (transfusion committee, OR-personnel, pharmacists). The hospitals in the control group will receive a control strategy (i.e., passive dissemination of available evidence). Outcomes will be measured at patient level, using retrospective medical record review. This will be done in all hospitals at baseline and after completion of the intervention period. The primary outcome of the effect evaluation is the percentage of patients undergoing primary elective total hip or knee arthroplasty in which erythropoietin or perioperative blood salvage is applied. The actual exposure to the tailored strategy and users’ experiences will be assessed in the process evaluation. In the economic evaluation, the costs of the tailored strategy and the control strategy in relation to the difference in their effectiveness will be compared.DiscussionThis study will show whether a systematically developed tailored strategy is more effective for de-implementation of non-cost-effective blood saving measures than the control strategy. This knowledge can be used in national and international initiatives to make healthcare more efficient. It also provides more generalized knowledge regarding de-implementation strategies.Trial registrationThis trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register NTR4044.

Barriers and Facilitators Associated with Non-Surgical Treatment Use for Osteoarthritis Patients in Orthopaedic Practice

Introduction International evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with (a combination of) non-surgical treatments, and using surgical intervention only if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that non-surgical treatments are not optimally used in orthopaedic practice. To improve the adoption of non-surgical treatments, more insight is needed into barriers and facilitators of these treatments. Therefore, this study assessed which barriers and facilitators are associated with the use and prescription of different non-surgical treatments before hip and knee OA in orthopaedic practice among patients and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands. Materials and Methods We performed two internet-based surveys among 172 orthopaedic surgeons and 174 OA patients. Univariate association and multivariable regression techniques are used to identify barriers and facilitators associated with the use of non-surgical treatments. Results Most barriers and facilitators among patients were associated with the use of physical therapy, lifestyle advice and dietary therapy. Among orthopaedic surgeons, most were associated with prescription of acetaminophen, dietary therapy and physical therapy. Examples of barriers and facilitators among patients included “People in my environment had positive experiences with a surgery” (facilitator for education about OA), and “Advice of people in my environment to keep on moving” (facilitator for lifestyle and dietary advice). For orthopaedic surgeons, examples were “Lack of knowledge about guideline” (barrier for lifestyle advice), “Agreements/ deliberations with primary care” and “Easy communication with a dietician” (facilitators for dietary therapy). Also the belief in the efficacy of these treatments was associated with increased prescription. Conclusions Strategies to improve non-surgical treatment use in orthopaedic practice should be targeted at changing the beliefs of orthopedic surgeons, communication with other OA care providers and involving patient’s environment in OA treatment.