36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Why is it so hard to implement change? A qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators to distribution of naloxone for overdose prevention in a safety net environment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          The increase in opioid overdose deaths has become a national public health crisis. Naloxone is an important tool in opioid overdose prevention. Distribution of nasal naloxone has been found to be a feasible, and effective intervention in community settings and may have potential high applicability in the emergency department, which is often the initial point of care for persons at high risk of overdose. One safety net hospital introduced an innovative policy to offer take-home nasal naloxone via a standing order to ensure distribution to patients at risk for overdose. The aims of this study were to examine acceptance and uptake of the policy and assess facilitators and barriers to implementation.

          Methods

          After obtaining pre-post data on naloxone distribution, we conducted a qualitative study. The PARiHS framework steered development of the qualitative guide. We used theoretical sampling in order to include the range of types of emergency department staff (50 total). The constant comparative method was initially used to code the transcripts and identify themes; the themes that emerged from the coding were then mapped back to the evidence, context and facilitation constructs of the PARiHS framework.

          Results

          Acceptance of the policy was good but uptake was low. Primary themes related to facilitators included: real-world driven intervention with philosophical, clinician and leadership support; basic education and training efforts; availability of resources; and ability to leave the ED with the naloxone kit in hand. Barriers fell into five general categories: protocol and policy; workflow and logistical; patient-related; staff roles and responsibilities; and education and training.

          Conclusions

          The actual implementation of a new innovation in healthcare delivery is largely driven by factors beyond acceptance. Despite support and resources, implementation was challenging, with low uptake. While the potential of this innovation is unknown, understanding the experience is important to improve uptake in this setting and offer possible solutions for other facilities to address the opioid overdose crisis. Use of the PARiHS framework allowed us to recognize and understand key evidence, contextual and facilitation barriers to the successful implementation of the policy and to identify areas for improvement.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2268-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          The Discovery of Grounded Theory

          <p>Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and how theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss address the equally Important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data--systematically obtained and analyzed in social research--can be furthered. The discovery of theory from data--grounded theory--is a major task confronting sociology, for such a theory fits empirical situations, and is understandable to sociologists and laymen alike. Most important, it provides relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications.</p><p>In Part I of the book, Generation Theory by Comparative Analysis, the authors present a strategy whereby sociologists can facilitate the discovery of grounded theory, both substantive and formal. This strategy involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups. In Part II, The Flexible Use of Data, the generation of theory from qualitative, especially documentary, and quantitative data Is considered. In Part III, Implications of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss examine the credibility of grounded theory.</p><p>The Discovery of Grounded Theory is directed toward improving social scientists' capacity for generating theory that will be relevant to their research. While aimed primarily at sociologists, it will be useful to anyone Interested In studying social phenomena--political, educational, economic, industrial-- especially If their studies are based on qualitative data.</p></p>
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges

            Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.

              Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                617-414-1417 , drainoni@bu.edu
                elisakop@bu.edu
                james.feldman@bmc.org
                alexander.walley@bmc.org
                patricia.mitchell@bmc.org
                ellisonj@bu.edu
                ebernste@bu.edu
                Journal
                BMC Res Notes
                BMC Res Notes
                BMC Research Notes
                BioMed Central (London )
                1756-0500
                18 October 2016
                18 October 2016
                2016
                : 9
                : 465
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T3 W, Boston, MA 02118 USA
                [2 ]Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA USA
                [3 ]Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, ENRM Veterans Administration Hospital, Bedford, MA USA
                [4 ]Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA USA
                Article
                2268
                10.1186/s13104-016-2268-z
                5070095
                27756427
                6b571bf2-0223-4608-9c94-56c4ca16a0e9
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 March 2016
                : 6 October 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Boston University School of Public Health
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                opioid overdose,overdose prevention,policy implementation,emergency department
                Medicine
                opioid overdose, overdose prevention, policy implementation, emergency department

                Comments

                Comment on this article