UNASSIGNED: To improve perioperative patient safety, guidelines for the preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative phase were introduced in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013. To help the implementation of these guidelines, we aimed to get a better understanding of the barriers and drivers of perioperative guideline adherence and to explore what can be learned for future implementation projects in complex organizations.
UNASSIGNED: We developed a questionnaire survey based on the theoretical framework of Van Sluisveld et al. for classifying barriers and facilitators. The questionnaire contained 57 statements derived from (a) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations by the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, (b) interviews with quality and safety policy officers and perioperative professionals, and (c) a publication of Cabana et al. The target group consisted of 232 perioperative professionals in nine hospitals. In addition to rating the statements on a five-point Likert scale (which were classified into the seven categories of the framework: factors relating to the intervention, society, implementation, organization, professional, patients, and social factors), respondents were invited to rank their three most important barriers in a separate, extra open-ended question.
UNASSIGNED: Ninety-five professionals (41%) completed the questionnaire. Fifteen statements (26%) were considered to be barriers, relating to social factors (N = 5), the organization (N = 4), the professional (N = 4), the patient (N = 1), and the intervention (N = 1). An integrated information system was considered an important facilitator (70.4%) as well as audit and feedback (41.8%). The Barriers Top-3 question resulted in 75 different barriers in nearly all categories. The most frequently reported barriers were as follows: time pressure (16% of the total number of barriers), emergency patients (8%), inefficient IT structure (4%), and workload (3%).
UNASSIGNED: We identified a wide range of barriers that are believed to hinder the use of the perioperative safety guidelines, while an integrated information system and local data collection and feedback will also be necessary to engage perioperative teams. These barriers need to be locally prioritized and addressed by tailored implementation strategies. These results may also be of relevance for guideline implementation in general in complex organizations.
UNASSIGNED: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify implementation barriers and opportunities to increase utilization of the Canadian Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH) Collaborative\'s clinical practice guideline.
METHODS: A validated readiness assessment was sent via SurveyMonkey™ to CAPSNet site coordinators and local CDH stakeholders. The survey was open from 11/2018 to 02/2019. Data and responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (REB 2019-4753).
RESULTS: Eighty-six responses were received, of which 65% (n = 56/86) were fully completed. The greatest number of responses came from neonatology (n = 27), pediatric surgery (n = 25), and respiratory therapy (n = 10). Seventy-eight percent (n = 67/86) of respondents were aware of the CDH guideline, and 63% (n = 54/86) used the entire guideline, while 23% (n = 20/86) used only certain sections. Besides recommendations pertaining to fetal intervention and ECLS, interdisciplinary long-term surveillance and prenatal diagnosis were considered most difficult to implement owing to funding limitations. Most respondents (n = 49/56; 87.5%) felt they could implement >75% of the recommendations. Establishing common team goals [i.e., minimize care variations] (n = 33/58;57%), provider buy-in [commitment of all health professionals to the guideline] (n = 28/58;48%), and regular compliance assessment (n = 23/58;40%) would increase uptake.
CONCLUSIONS: There is national awareness of the CDH guideline. Implementation strategies ensuring common team goals, provider buy-in, and regular compliance assessment should increase guideline uptake/utilization. Consolidating funding for interdisciplinary long-term surveillance and prenatal diagnosis is necessary for any site-specific implementation strategy.
METHODS: Level 4 qualitative, survey.

暂无摘要。

Guidelines may reduce practice variation and optimize patient care. We aimed to study differences in guideline use in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and analyze reasons for guideline non-adherence.
As part of a prospective, observational, multicenter European cohort study, participants from 68 centers in 20 countries were asked to complete 72-item questionnaires regarding their management of severe TBI. Six questions with multiple sub-questions focused on guideline use and implementation.
Questionnaires were completed by 65 centers. Of these, 49 (75%) reported use of the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the medical management of TBI or related institutional protocols, 11 (17%) used no guidelines, and 5 used other guidelines (8%). Of 54 centers reporting use of any guidelines, 41 (75%) relied on written guidelines. Four centers of the 54 (7%) reported no formal implementation efforts. Structural attention to the guidelines during daily clinical rounds was reported by 21 centers (38%). The most often reported reasons for non-adherence were \"every patient is unique\" and the presence of extracranial injuries, both for centers that did and did not report the use of guidelines.
There is substantial variability in the use and implementation of guidelines in neurotrauma centers in Europe. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence underlying guidelines and to overcome implementation barriers.