24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The physician’s experience of changing clinical practice: a struggle to unlearn

      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

          Changing clinical practice is a difficult process, best illustrated by the time lag between evidence and use in practice and the extensive use of low-value care. Existing models mostly focus on the barriers to learning and implementing new knowledge. Changing clinical practice, however, includes not only the learning of new practices but also unlearning old and outmoded knowledge. There exists sparse literature regarding the unlearning that takes place at a physician level. Our research objective was to elucidate the experience of trying to abandon an outmoded clinical practice and its relation to learning a new one.

          Methods

          We used a grounded theory-based qualitative approach to conduct our study. We conducted 30-min in-person interviews with 15 primary care physicians at the Cleveland VA Medical Center and its clinics. We used a semi-structured interview guide to standardize the interviews.

          Results

          Our two findings include (1) practice change disturbs the status quo equilibrium. Establishing a new equilibrium that incorporates the change may be a struggle; and (2) part of the struggle to establish a new equilibrium incorporating a practice change involves both the “evidence” itself and tensions between evidence and context.

          Conclusions

          Our findings provide evidence-based support for many of the empirical unlearning models that have been adapted to healthcare. Our findings differ from these empirical models in that they refute the static and unidirectional nature of change that previous models imply. Rather, our findings suggest that clinical practice is in a constant flux of change; each instance of unlearning and learning is merely a punctuation mark in this spectrum of change. We suggest that physician unlearning models be modified to reflect the constantly changing nature of clinical practice and demonstrate that change is a multi-directional process.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0555-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Gaps between knowing and doing: understanding and assessing the barriers to optimal health care.

            A significant gap exists between science and clinical practice guidelines, on the one hand, and actual clinical practice, on the other. An in-depth understanding of the barriers and incentives contributing to the gap can lead to interventions that effect change toward optimal practice and thus to better care. A systematic review of English language studies involving human subjects and published from January 1998 to March 2007 yielded 256 articles that fulfilled established criteria. The analysis was guided by two research questions: How are barriers are assessed? and What types of barriers are identified? The studies abstracted were coded according to 33 emerging themes; placed into seven categories that typified the barriers; grouped as to whether they involved the health care professional, the guideline, the scientific evidence, the patient, or the health system; and organized according to relationship pattern between barriers. The results expand our understanding of how multiple factors pose barriers to optimal clinical practice. The review reveals increasing numbers of behavioral and system barriers. Quantitative survey type assessments continue to dominate barrier research; however, an increasing number of qualitative and mixed-method study designs have emerged recently. The findings establish the evolution of research methodologies and emerging barriers to the translation of knowing to doing. While many studies are methodologically weak, there are indications that designs are becoming more aligned with the complexity of the health care environment. The review provides support for the need to examine multiple factors within the knowledge-to-action process.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

              As newer oral diabetes agents continue to emerge on the market, comparative evidence is urgently required to guide appropriate therapy. To summarize the English-language literature on the benefits and harms of oral agents (second-generation sulfonylureas, biguanides, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors) in the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception through January 2006 for original articles and through November 2005 for systematic reviews. Unpublished U.S. Food and Drug Administration and industry data were also searched. 216 controlled trials and cohort studies and 2 systematic reviews that addressed benefits and harms of oral diabetes drug classes available in the United States. Using standardized protocols, 2 reviewers serially abstracted data for each article. Evidence from clinical trials was inconclusive on major clinical end points, such as cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, the review was limited mainly to studies of intermediate end points. Most oral agents (thiazolidinediones, metformin, and repaglinide) improved glycemic control to the same degree as sulfonylureas (absolute decrease in hemoglobin A1c level of about 1 percentage point). Nateglinide and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors may have slightly weaker effects, on the basis of indirect comparisons of placebo-controlled trials. Thiazolidinediones were the only class that had a beneficial effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (mean relative increase, 0.08 to 0.13 mmol/L [3 to 5 mg/dL]) but a harmful effect on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels (mean relative increase, 0.26 mmol/L [10 mg/dL]) compared with other oral agents. Metformin decreased LDL cholesterol levels by about 0.26 mmol/L (10 mg/dL), whereas other oral agents had no obvious effects on LDL cholesterol levels. Most agents other than metformin increased body weight by 1 to 5 kg. Sulfonylureas and repaglinide were associated with greater risk for hypoglycemia, thiazolidinediones with greater risk for heart failure, and metformin with greater risk for gastrointestinal problems compared with other oral agents. Lactic acidosis was no more common in metformin recipients without comorbid conditions than in recipients of other oral diabetes agents. Data on major clinical end points were limited. Studies inconsistently reported adverse events other than hypoglycemia, and definitions of adverse events varied across studies. Some harms not assessed in trials or observational studies may have been overlooked. Compared with newer, more expensive agents (thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and meglitinides), older agents (second-generation sulfonylureas and metformin) have similar or superior effects on glycemic control, lipids, and other intermediate end points. Large, long-term comparative studies are needed to determine the comparative effects of oral diabetes agents on hard clinical end points.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                divya.gupta@case.edu
                richard.boland@case.edu
                216-791-2300x5702 , david.aron@va.gov
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                28 February 2017
                28 February 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 28
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2164 3847, GRID grid.67105.35, School of Medicine, , Case Western Reserve University, ; Cleveland, OH USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2164 3847, GRID grid.67105.35, Weatherhead School of Management, , Case Western Reserve University, ; Cleveland, OH USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0420 190X, GRID grid.410349.b, , Louis Stokes Cleveland Dept. of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, ; Admin Building (EUL) Room 5 M677, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
                Article
                555
                10.1186/s13012-017-0555-2
                5331724
                28245849
                bd5418b8-aca1-4604-9a9e-d24330da6c05
                © The Author(s). 2017

                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
                : 8 November 2016
                : 10 February 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: veterans health administration
                Award ID: SCE 12-181
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Medicine
                unlearning,practice change,grounded theory,qualitative methods
                Medicine
                unlearning, practice change, grounded theory, qualitative methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article