Translating evidence into practice: a longitudinal qualitative exploration of allied health decision-making

Abstract

Background Health policy and management decisions rarely reflect research evidence. As part of a broader randomized controlled study exploring implementation science strategies we examined how allied health managers respond to two distinct recommendations and the evidence that supports them. Methods A qualitative study nested in a larger randomized controlled trial. Allied health managers across Australia and New Zealand who were responsible for weekend allied health resource allocation decisions towards the provision of inpatient service to acute general medical and surgical wards, and subacute rehabilitation wards were eligible for inclusion. Consenting participants were randomized to (1) control group or (2) implementation group 1, which received an evidence-based policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, or (3) implementation group 2, which received the same policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions with support from a knowledge broker. As part of the trial, serial focus groups were conducted with a sample of over 80 allied health managers recruited to implementation group 2 only. A total 17 health services participated in serial focus groups according to their allocated randomization wave, over a 12-month study period. The primary outcome was participant perceptions and data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Thematic saturation was achieved. Results Five key themes emerged: (1) Local data is more influential than external evidence; (2) How good is the evidence and does it apply to us? (3) It is difficult to change things; (4) Historically that is how we have done things; and (5) What if we get complaints? Conclusions This study explored implementation of strategies to bridge gaps in evidence-informed decision-making. Results provide insight into barriers, which prevent the implementation of evidence-based practice from fully and successfully occurring, such as attitudes towards evidence, limited skills in critical appraisal, and lack of authority to promote change. In addition, strategies are needed to manage the risk of confirmation biases in decision-making processes. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12618000029291). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1205-2621.

A pragmatic evaluation of a public health knowledge broker mentoring education program: a convergent mixed methods study

“…One limitation of the KB mentoring program was the focus on using research evidence, rather than data from other sources such as local context. Local evidence has been previously found to be more influential than external evidence [ 30 ]. Further training on the EIDM steps of implementation and evaluation were also identified.…”

Health workforce perceptions on telehealth augmentation opportunities

“…Similar to Thomas et al [ 9 ], this research identified a lack of clinician confidence and experience in delivering health care via telehealth modalities contributed anecdotally to lower uptake and continuation of care in this mode. While initial reluctance may be explained due to a hesitancy towards change away from ‘historical’ processes [ 23 , 24 ], this research identifies some of the solutions required to influence increased and maintained uptake of virtual care modalities into the future.…”

Experiences and perceptions of final‐year nursing students of using a chatbot in a simulated emergency situation: A qualitative study

“…In this context, the provision of safe and high‐quality health care will be dependent on clinical judgements and decisions made by professionals at all levels of the health care system (Melin‐Johansson et al, 2017 ). The clinical decision, by definition, is a complex, dynamic selection process with numerous variables to be considered, resulting from the critical reasoning process and derived from both the knowledge and experience of the professional (Farčić et al, 2020 ; Manetti, 2019 ), in which, depending on the decision taken, the expected results can either have a positive impact or seriously compromise the clinical safety of the patient (White et al, 2021 ).…”