Abstract
Introduction Implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be constrained by diverging guideline interpretations, leading to a discrepancy between the intended clinical practice and the clinical practice implemented. We examine how CPGs on lifestyle behavior for psychiatric inpatients are translated into clinical daily practice, and how this was affected by discourses surrounding the stakeholders.
Methods We conducted a comparative case study within two psychiatric wards in Denmark, wherein a clinical practice guideline (CPG) addressing lifestyle behavior was implemented. The objective of the CPG was to strategically intervene in the prevalence of unhealthy lifestyle practices among inpatients. Critical discourse analysis and a perspective of translation formed the theoretical framework. We collected empirical material at two stakeholder levels; the CPG authors and clinicians. This included documents related to the CPGs, field observations and two focus group interviews with clinicians.
Results The CPG were composed within a system-centered discourse where lifestyle intervention was considered relevant for all inpatients. The clinicians translated the CPGs within a person-centered discourse and a prioritization discourse, focusing on individual factors such as the patient’s own wishes, surplus energy, and the status of the psychiatric treatment.
Conclusion The findings show that implementation of guidelines in their original form cannot be anticipated, but will constitute translation based on social structures and their discourses. Unawareness of this phenomenon called translation may affect implementation and should be considered when CPGs are developed and launched. Future research should explore how discourses and social processes among patients influences implementation of CPGs.
What is known on this topic?
Several barriers explaining why clinical practice guidelines are not followed by intention has been reported
Less is known about the situations in which the clinicians believe that they follow the guidelines, but translate the content of them unintentionally
What this study adds to existing knowledge
Our findings show how clinical practice guidelines can be translated according to the discourses and social processes surrounding the different stakeholders. In this study, clinicians unintentionally changed the practice intented in the guidelines.
The clinical practice guidelines arose from a system-centered discourse, expecting all patients to have the same need for lifestyle intervention.
The dissemination of the clinical practice guidelines was formed by a patient-centered and a prioritations discourse, focusing on the patients’ individual needs.
What are the implications for practice?
Clinical practice guidelines are translated differently by stakeholders, and cannot be expected to be implemented in its original form.
Policy makers should be aware of this phenomenom called translation, as it is pivotal to align perceptions of clinical practice guidelines or interventions across stakeholders.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
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:
Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by the Psychiatry Management (Clinical professor and head of department Jan Mainz), North Denmark Region. Patients and clinicians were given oral and written information about the study and were informed about researchers' participation in group sessions and the aim of the study. All persons were allowed to decline the researchers' attendance. The focus group participants were sent written information together with a consent form, which they signed before the interview.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
