Introduction: Implementation of evidence-based health guidelines in primary care is challenging. This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence that investigates the factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care. Methods: A systematic review of qualitative studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Assia were searched (from 2000 to March 2019). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers. Data were analyzed and synthesized using thematic synthesis.Results: 1612 articles were screened and four articles with a total of 87 participants (46 patients, 28 GPs, 13 practice nurses) were included. Three of the studies were conducted in England within the context of an implementation trial and one was conducted in the Netherlands. The thematic synthesis revealed three overarching themes. Best practice was not enough to achieve 'buy-in' to implementation but a range of tacit motivators to implementation were identified. Healthcare professionals used patient reasons to justify engaging or not engaging with implementation. Engaging with the whole practice was important in achieving implementation. A disconnect between research and 'real-world' primary care practice influenced long-term implementation.Conclusions: Despite the relative paucity of current evidence, this systematic review has identified a series of possible disconnects may impact uptake of interventions to improve osteoarthritis care, existing between clinicians and patients, researchers and clinicians, clinicians and guidelines and within general practice itself. There remains a need to further explore the experiences of key stakeholders, including patients involved in implementation for osteoarthritis in primary care.

Background Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation. Methods This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5–8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results. Results In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. ‘Instinctive facilitation’ may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation. Conclusion This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.

Background: Group consultations are a relatively new concept in UK primary care and are a suggested solution to current workload pressures in general practice. However, little is known about the experience of implementing and delivering this approach from staff and organisational perspectives. Aim: To explore the experience of implementing and delivering group consultations in general practice. Design: Qualitative telephone interview study. Methods: Topic guides explored the perspectives and experiences of general practice staff on the implementation and delivery of group consultations. Data analysis adopted principles of the Framework Method underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory. Results: Interviews were conducted with 8 GPs, 8 Practice Nurses, 1 Nurse Associate, 1 Practice Pharmacist, 1 deputy Practice Manager, 1 Healthcare Assistant. Four themes were identified: sense making of group consultations; the work associated with initiating group consultations; the experiences of operationalising group consultations; and sustaining change. Group consultations made sense to participants as a mechanism to reduce burden on primary care, enhance multi-disciplinary working, and provide patient-centred care. Implementation required strong leadership from a ‘champion’, and a facilitator had a pivotal role in operationalising the approach. The associated workload was often underestimated. Barriers to embedding change included achieving whole practice buy-in, competing practice priorities, and system-level flexibility. Conclusion: General practice clinicians enjoyed group consultations, yet significant work is required to initiate and sustain the approach. An implementation plan considering leadership, roles and responsibilities and wider organisational support is required at the outset. Further research or evaluation is needed to measure process outcomes.