Abstract
Background Strategies 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.
Methods We 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.
Results We 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.
Conclusion Interviewees 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project was funded primarily under grant number 5R18HS024235-02 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), US Department of Health and Human Services. The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services. The funder had no role in the analysis, interpretation, or publication of this article.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Partners HealthCare and Stanford Institutional Review Boards reviewed the study and determined that this project meets the criteria for exemption 45 CFR 46. We obtained verbal consent before the start of every interview, with this consent method approved by both IRBs for implementer phone interviews.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: None
Data Availability
Data are not publicly available but can be requested by contacting the corresponding author.
