About this item:

91 Views | 46 Downloads

Author Notes:

Teaniese L. Davis, Email: teaniese.L.davis@kp.org

TLD made significant contributions to the study design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. TLD is the corresponding author. WS made significant contributions to the study design, data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. SCB made significant contributions to the study design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. SC made significant contributions to the study design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. SNB made significant contributions to the data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. JEP made significant contributions to the data analysis. RPZ made significant contributions to the data analysis. MI made significant contributions to the interpretation and drafting and revision of the work. JS made significant contributions to the interpretation and drafting and revision of the work. JJ made significant contributions to the data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. JLH made significant contributions to the data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. MVR made significant contributions to the study design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation, and drafting and revision of the work. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

There are no additional contributors to acknowledge in this section.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Litwin Pioneers Award

This research is supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD099344. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Keywords:

  • Enhanced recovery protocols
  • pediatric surgery

A qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators of pediatric enhanced recovery protocol implementation among 18 pediatric surgery services.

Show all authors Show less authors

Tools:

Journal Title:

Implement Sci Commun

Volume:

Volume 3, Number 1

Publisher:

, Pages 91-91

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) are an evidence-based intervention to optimize post-surgical recovery. Several studies have demonstrated that the use of an ERP for gastrointestinal surgery results in decreased length of stay, shortened time to a regular diet, and fewer administered opioids, while also trending toward lower complication and 30-day readmission rates. Yet, implementation of ERPs in pediatric surgery is lagging compared to adult surgery. The study's purpose was to conduct a theory-guided evaluation of barriers and facilitators to ERP implementation at US hospitals with a pediatric surgery service. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews at 18 hospitals with 48 participants, including pediatric surgeons, anesthesiologists, gastroenterologists, nurses, and physician assistants. Interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. To identify barriers and facilitators to ERP implementation, we conducted an analysis using deductive logics based on the five Active Implementation Frameworks (AIFs). RESULTS: Effective practices (usable innovations) were challenged by a lack of compliance to ERP elements, and facilitators were having standardized protocols in place and organization support for implementation. Effective implementation (stages of implementation and implementation drivers) had widespread barriers to implementation across the stages from exploration to full implementation. Barriers included needing dedicated teams for ERP implementation and buy-in from hospital leadership. These items, when present, were strong facilitators of effective implementation, in addition to on-site, checklists, protected time to oversee ERP implementation, and order sets for ERP elements built into the electronic medical record. The enabling context (teams) focused on teams' engagement in ERP implementation and how they collaborated to implement ERPs. Barriers included having surgical team members resistant to change or who were not bought into ERPs in pediatric practice. Facilitators included engaging a multi-disciplinary team and engaging patients and families early in the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to ERP implementation in pediatric surgery highlighted can be addressed through providing guidelines to ERP implementation, team-based support for change management, and protocols for developing an ERP implementation team. Future steps are to apply and evaluate these strategies in a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial to increase the implementation of ERPs at these 18 hospitals.

Copyright information:

© The Author(s) 2022

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf).
Export to EndNote