Cognitive Aids for Operating Room Crises - A thematic analysis of implementer experiences
Henrich, N.; Benotti, E.; Berry, W.; Hannenberg, A.; Hepner, D.; Karlage, A.; Goldhaber-Fiebert, S.
Show abstract
BackgroundStrategies for the implementation of evidence-based interventions have proliferated, but it remains unclear how these strategies are operationalized for different types of interventions and contexts. Here, we examine seven implementation strategies--initially developed for implementing the World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC)--for implementing cognitive aids for operating room (OR) crises. MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with implementers of these aids exploring the use of each of the strategies previously studied with WHO SSC implementation as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify and describe the use of the strategies. We mapped barriers and factors helping facilitate (facilitators) onto corresponding constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. ResultsWe conducted interviews with 37 implementers across the United States. Most interviewees identified similar strategies in their implementation process, and none offered additional strategies that fell outside existing categories. There was substantial variation among implementers in how the strategies were deployed. Many of the barriers and facilitators were common across implementations. ConclusionInterviewees used a core set of strategies to implement cognitive aids for OR crises, but there was substantial variation in how implementers used these strategies, suggesting the flexibility of the strategies and the value of deliberately adapting strategies to local context. The transferability of implementation strategies from the WHO SSC to other OR-based cognitive aids demonstrates the utility of informing novel implementations with prior successful ones that share similar attributes with respect to intervention and/or context.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Determinants of regulatory compliance in health and social care services: a systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 94%
- Evaluating user experience with immersive technology in simulation-based education: a modified Delphi study with qualitative analysis 94%
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding good communication in ambulance pre-alerts to Emergency Department. Findings from a qualitative study of UK emergency services 95%
- Administration approaches of nursing assistants in hospitals: a scoping review 94%
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Management of the COVID-19 health crisis: A survey in Swiss hospital pharmacies 92%
- A System Dynamics Model for Effects of Workplace Violence and Clinician Burnout on Agitation Management in the Emergency Department 92%
- Differences in medication reconciliation interventions between six hospitals: a mixed method study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Interventions To Improve Patient Safety During The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 94%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 92%
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.