A Qualitative Study Exploring Factors Associated with Provider Adherence to Severe Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Guidelines

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

<p id="d8465206e352">Despite demonstrated improvement in patient outcomes with use of the Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Guidelines (Guidelines), there are differential rates of adherence. Provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adherence have not been elucidated. This study aimed to identify and explore in depth the provider perspective on factors associated with adherence to the Guidelines using 19 focus groups with nurses and physicians who provided acute management for pediatric patients with TBI at five university-affiliated Level 1 trauma centers. Data were examined using deductive and inductive content analysis. Results indicated that three inter-related domains were associated with clinical adherence: 1) perceived guideline credibility and applicability to individual patients, 2) implementation, dissemination, and enforcement strategies, and 3) provider culture, communication styles, and attitudes towards protocols. Specifically, Guideline usefulness was determined by the perceived relevance to the individual patient given age, injury etiology, and severity and the strength of the evidence. Institutional methods to formally endorse, codify, and implement the Guidelines into the local culture were important. Providers wanted local protocols developed using interdisciplinary consensus. Finally, a culture of collaboration, including consistent, respectful communication and interdisciplinary cooperation, facilitated adherence. Provider training and experience, as well as attitudes towards other standardized care protocols, mirror the use and attitudes towards the Guidelines. Adherence was determined by the interaction of each of these guideline, institutional, and provider factors acting in concert. Incorporating provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adherence into hospital and team protocols is an important step toward improving adherence and ultimately patient outcomes. </p>

Related collections

Most cited references 31

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

'Best practice' in focus group research: making sense of different views.

Tim Freeman (2006)

The aim of this paper is to identify the broad epistemological debates which underpin conflicting statements on 'rigour' and 'good practice' in qualitative research; to relate divergences in statements of 'good practice' in focus group design made by the pre-eminent commentators on focus group methodology to these broader epistemological debates; and to stimulate further reflection on the range of possible uses for focus groups in health services research. Considerations of the analysis of focus group data are beyond the scope of this paper. Focus groups are a popular form of qualitative data collection, and may be defined as a particular form of group interview intended to exploit group dynamics. While qualitative research may be broadly characterized as concerned with exploring people's lived experiences and perspectives in context, it is a heterogeneous field incorporating many theoretical traditions. Consequently, qualitative researchers may be informed by a wide range of assumptions about the nature of knowledge (epistemology). These assumptions, whether implicit or explicit, have important consequences for claims about rigour and 'good practice' in data collection. Thus, while there is broad agreement over the general form of focus groups, statements of 'good practice' in terms of its application are varied. A close reading of texts by the two pre-eminent commentators on the practical application of focus groups identifies differences in 'best practice' focus group design related to their respective epistemological assumptions, and differences principally related to sampling techniques, composition of groups, the perceived role of group interaction and the nature of inference. Explicit consideration of the epistemological basis of divergent statements of 'best practice' in focus group design forces health services researchers to balance the demands of theory with the practicalities of conducting focus group research within complex host organisations; and encourages readers to apply appraisal criteria appropriate to the stated intentions of researchers.

0 comments Cited 75 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Management of brain-injured patients by an evidence-based medicine protocol improves outcomes and decreases hospital charges.

Samir Fakhry, Arthur Trask, Maureen Waller … (2004)

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death from blunt trauma, with an estimated cost to society of over dollar 40 billion annually. Evidence-based guidelines for TBI care have been widely discussed, but in-hospital treatment of these patients has been highly variable. The purpose of this study was to determine whether management of TBI patients according to a protocol based on the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) guidelines would reduce mortality, length of stay, charges, and disability. In 1995, a protocol following the BTF guidelines was developed by members of the Level I trauma center's interdisciplinary neurotrauma task force. Inclusion criteria for the protocol were blunt head injury, age > 14 years, and Glasgow Coma Scale score 48 hours. After implementation, initial analysis of the 1995-96 cohort indicated only 50% compliance with the protocol. By 1997, compliance had risen to 88%. Patients were therefore compared as three groups: before the protocol (1991-94, n = 219), during low compliance (1995-96, n = 188), and during high compliance (1997-2000, n = 423). Groups did not differ significantly on Injury Severity Score, head Abbreviated Injury Scale score, or age (p > 0.05). Admission Glasgow Coma Scale score was slightly higher in the 1991-94 cohort (4.0 vs. 3.5, p = 0.001). From 1991-94 to 1997-2000, intensive care unit stay was reduced by 1.8 days (p = 0.021) and total hospital stay was reduced by 5.4 days (p 48 hours. In addition, mortality and outcome may be significantly affected. This analysis suggests that increased efforts to improve adherence to national guidelines may have a significant impact on head injury care outcomes and could dramatically reduce the substantial financial resources that are currently consumed in the acute care phases for this injury.