Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial

case-study evaluation of adoption and maintenance of a complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing

Aileen Grant (Lead / Corresponding author), Tobias Dreischulte, Bruce Guthrie

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    4 Citations (Scopus)
    96 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Objective: Explore how different practices responded to the Data driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention in terms of their adoption of the work, reorganisation to deliver the intended change in care to patients, and whether implementation was sustained over time.

    Design: Mixed methods parallel process evaluation of a cluster trial, reporting the comparative case study of purposively selected practices.

    Setting: Ten (30%) primary care practices participating in the trial. Scotland, United Kingdom.

    Results: Four practices were sampled because they had large rapid reductions in targeted prescribing. They all had internal agreement that the topic mattered, made early plans to implement including assigning responsibility for work, and regularly evaluated progress. However, how they internally organised the work varied. Six practices were sampled because they had initial implementation failure. Implementation failure occurred at different stages depending on practice context, including internal disagreement about whether the work was worthwhile, and intention but lack of capacity to implement or sustain implementation due to unfilled posts or sickness. Practice context was not fixed, and most practices with initial failed implementation adapted to deliver at least some elements. All interviewed participants valued the intervention because it was an innovative way to address on an important aspect of safety (although one of the non-interviewed GPs in one practice disagreed with this). Participants felt that reviewing existing prescribing did influence their future initiation of targeted drugs, but raised concerns about sustainability.
    Conclusions: Variation in implementation and effectiveness was associated with differences in how practices valued, engaged with, and sustained the work required. Initial implementation failure varied with practice context, but was not static, with most practices at least partially implementing by the end of the trial. Practices organised their delivery of changed care to patients in ways which suited their context, emphasising the importance of flexibility in any future widespread implementation.
    Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502
    Original languageEnglish
    Article numbere015281
    Pages (from-to)1-12
    Number of pages12
    JournalBMJ Open
    Volume7
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2017

    Fingerprint

    Quality Improvement
    Primary Health Care
    Maintenance
    Patient Care
    Scotland
    Data Accuracy
    Safety
    Pharmaceutical Preparations

    Keywords

    • General practice
    • family practice
    • prescribing
    • quality and safety
    • randomised controlled trials
    • process evaluation

    Cite this

    @article{955bbca7d26642df8ea314ac5af2b517,
    title = "Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial: case-study evaluation of adoption and maintenance of a complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing",
    abstract = "Objective: Explore how different practices responded to the Data driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention in terms of their adoption of the work, reorganisation to deliver the intended change in care to patients, and whether implementation was sustained over time.Design: Mixed methods parallel process evaluation of a cluster trial, reporting the comparative case study of purposively selected practices.Setting: Ten (30{\%}) primary care practices participating in the trial. Scotland, United Kingdom.Results: Four practices were sampled because they had large rapid reductions in targeted prescribing. They all had internal agreement that the topic mattered, made early plans to implement including assigning responsibility for work, and regularly evaluated progress. However, how they internally organised the work varied. Six practices were sampled because they had initial implementation failure. Implementation failure occurred at different stages depending on practice context, including internal disagreement about whether the work was worthwhile, and intention but lack of capacity to implement or sustain implementation due to unfilled posts or sickness. Practice context was not fixed, and most practices with initial failed implementation adapted to deliver at least some elements. All interviewed participants valued the intervention because it was an innovative way to address on an important aspect of safety (although one of the non-interviewed GPs in one practice disagreed with this). Participants felt that reviewing existing prescribing did influence their future initiation of targeted drugs, but raised concerns about sustainability.Conclusions: Variation in implementation and effectiveness was associated with differences in how practices valued, engaged with, and sustained the work required. Initial implementation failure varied with practice context, but was not static, with most practices at least partially implementing by the end of the trial. Practices organised their delivery of changed care to patients in ways which suited their context, emphasising the importance of flexibility in any future widespread implementation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502",
    keywords = "General practice, family practice, prescribing, quality and safety, randomised controlled trials, process evaluation",
    author = "Aileen Grant and Tobias Dreischulte and Bruce Guthrie",
    note = "The study was supported by a grant (ARPG/07/02) from the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office.",
    year = "2017",
    month = "3",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015281",
    language = "English",
    volume = "7",
    pages = "1--12",
    journal = "BMJ Open",
    issn = "2044-6055",
    publisher = "BMJ Journals",
    number = "3",

    }

    Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial : case-study evaluation of adoption and maintenance of a complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing. / Grant, Aileen (Lead / Corresponding author); Dreischulte, Tobias; Guthrie, Bruce.

    In: BMJ Open, Vol. 7, No. 3, e015281, 01.03.2017, p. 1-12.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial

    T2 - case-study evaluation of adoption and maintenance of a complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing

    AU - Grant, Aileen

    AU - Dreischulte, Tobias

    AU - Guthrie, Bruce

    N1 - The study was supported by a grant (ARPG/07/02) from the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office.

    PY - 2017/3/1

    Y1 - 2017/3/1

    N2 - Objective: Explore how different practices responded to the Data driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention in terms of their adoption of the work, reorganisation to deliver the intended change in care to patients, and whether implementation was sustained over time.Design: Mixed methods parallel process evaluation of a cluster trial, reporting the comparative case study of purposively selected practices.Setting: Ten (30%) primary care practices participating in the trial. Scotland, United Kingdom.Results: Four practices were sampled because they had large rapid reductions in targeted prescribing. They all had internal agreement that the topic mattered, made early plans to implement including assigning responsibility for work, and regularly evaluated progress. However, how they internally organised the work varied. Six practices were sampled because they had initial implementation failure. Implementation failure occurred at different stages depending on practice context, including internal disagreement about whether the work was worthwhile, and intention but lack of capacity to implement or sustain implementation due to unfilled posts or sickness. Practice context was not fixed, and most practices with initial failed implementation adapted to deliver at least some elements. All interviewed participants valued the intervention because it was an innovative way to address on an important aspect of safety (although one of the non-interviewed GPs in one practice disagreed with this). Participants felt that reviewing existing prescribing did influence their future initiation of targeted drugs, but raised concerns about sustainability.Conclusions: Variation in implementation and effectiveness was associated with differences in how practices valued, engaged with, and sustained the work required. Initial implementation failure varied with practice context, but was not static, with most practices at least partially implementing by the end of the trial. Practices organised their delivery of changed care to patients in ways which suited their context, emphasising the importance of flexibility in any future widespread implementation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502

    AB - Objective: Explore how different practices responded to the Data driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention in terms of their adoption of the work, reorganisation to deliver the intended change in care to patients, and whether implementation was sustained over time.Design: Mixed methods parallel process evaluation of a cluster trial, reporting the comparative case study of purposively selected practices.Setting: Ten (30%) primary care practices participating in the trial. Scotland, United Kingdom.Results: Four practices were sampled because they had large rapid reductions in targeted prescribing. They all had internal agreement that the topic mattered, made early plans to implement including assigning responsibility for work, and regularly evaluated progress. However, how they internally organised the work varied. Six practices were sampled because they had initial implementation failure. Implementation failure occurred at different stages depending on practice context, including internal disagreement about whether the work was worthwhile, and intention but lack of capacity to implement or sustain implementation due to unfilled posts or sickness. Practice context was not fixed, and most practices with initial failed implementation adapted to deliver at least some elements. All interviewed participants valued the intervention because it was an innovative way to address on an important aspect of safety (although one of the non-interviewed GPs in one practice disagreed with this). Participants felt that reviewing existing prescribing did influence their future initiation of targeted drugs, but raised concerns about sustainability.Conclusions: Variation in implementation and effectiveness was associated with differences in how practices valued, engaged with, and sustained the work required. Initial implementation failure varied with practice context, but was not static, with most practices at least partially implementing by the end of the trial. Practices organised their delivery of changed care to patients in ways which suited their context, emphasising the importance of flexibility in any future widespread implementation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502

    KW - General practice

    KW - family practice

    KW - prescribing

    KW - quality and safety

    KW - randomised controlled trials

    KW - process evaluation

    U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015281

    DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015281

    M3 - Article

    VL - 7

    SP - 1

    EP - 12

    JO - BMJ Open

    JF - BMJ Open

    SN - 2044-6055

    IS - 3

    M1 - e015281

    ER -