Display options
Cite
Sibbald SL, Van Asseldonk R, Cao PL, et al. Lessons learned from inadequate implementation planning of team-based chronic disease management: implementation evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):134doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06100-4.
Sibbald, S. L., Van Asseldonk, R., Cao, P. L., & Law, B. (2021). Lessons learned from inadequate implementation planning of team-based chronic disease management: implementation evaluation. BMC health services research, 21(1), 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06100-4
Sibbald, Shannon L, et al. "Lessons learned from inadequate implementation planning of team-based chronic disease management: implementation evaluation." BMC health services research vol. 21,1 (2021): 134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06100-4
Sibbald SL, Van Asseldonk R, Cao PL, Law B. Lessons learned from inadequate implementation planning of team-based chronic disease management: implementation evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Feb 12;21(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06100-4. PMID: 33579271; PMCID: PMC7881538.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Feb 12;21(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06100-4.

Lessons learned from inadequate implementation planning of team-based chronic disease management: implementation evaluation.

BMC health services research

Shannon L Sibbald, Rachelle Van Asseldonk, Peiwen L Cao, Benson Law

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. [email protected].
  2. Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. [email protected].
  3. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

PMID: 33579271 PMCID: PMC7881538 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06100-4

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was a retrospective evaluation of an unsuccessfully implemented team-based, chronic disease management program, with an aim to understand more about implementation barriers. The program, the Chronic Disease Management Initiative (CDMI) was a new collaborative model of care for patients with COPD. It utilized customized health information and interactive tools, mainly smartphones, for ongoing disease management. The program's goal was to demonstrate that integrated team-based models of care could improve patient care, as well as reduce readmission rates and emergency department visits. The program planning for CDMI began in 2017, followed by the implementation and evaluation period in 2018. After a 10-month implementation period, the program was unable to enroll a sufficient number of patients to examine if there was an improvement in patient outcomes.

METHODS: A retrospective case-study design using multiple data sources was used to gather feedback from participants involved in CDMI. Data collection occurred throughout planning and implementation and continued into early 2019. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 10 software. This was followed by content analysis.

RESULTS: Analysis revealed four key themes as barriers to CDMI's implementation: 1) lack of a needs assessment with key stakeholders; 2) lack of buy-in from medical staff; 3) inadequate patient engagement and; 4) contextual barriers. Planners did not conduct a proper needs assessment, nor include patients in the study design. In addition, there was insufficient consideration for how CDMI should be integrated into the usual COPD care plan, leading to confusion in roles and responsibilities. Poor communication between the implementation team and healthcare providers implementing the program, led to a lack of buy-in and engagement.

CONCLUSION: The key themes resonate with what is already known in the literature. This study supports the importance of using a theoretically grounded plan for implementation. Using a model only in the planning stages is insufficient even when an intervention is based on evidence to support higher quality care. It is imperative to consider practical and contextual factors of program implementation and their interactions. By detailing the 'failed implementation' of this intervention, we hope to share important lessons about the need to plan implementation processes early in program planning.

Keywords: COPD; Change management; Chronic disease; Evidence-based practice; Facilitation; Failure; Implementation research into practice; Implementation study

References

  1. Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53 - PubMed
  2. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88 - PubMed
  3. Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 23;13(1):36 - PubMed
  4. BMC Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 23;13:34 - PubMed
  5. Implement Sci. 2013 Dec 01;8:139 - PubMed
  6. Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50 - PubMed
  7. BMJ Open. 2017 Apr 3;7(4):e013318 - PubMed
  8. Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 10;8:65 - PubMed
  9. Qual Health Care. 1998 Sep;7(3):149-58 - PubMed
  10. Int J Integr Care. 2017 Jun 27;17(2):10 - PubMed
  11. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:255-74 - PubMed
  12. Implement Sci. 2017 Feb 10;12(1):15 - PubMed
  13. Med Clin North Am. 2008 Mar;92(2):275-93, vii-viii - PubMed
  14. Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):327-50 - PubMed
  15. Prev Sci. 2016 Nov;17(8):1002-1011 - PubMed
  16. JAMA. 2002 Oct 9;288(14):1775-9 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types