Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

A mixed methods evaluation of the maternal-newborn dashboard in Ontario: dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitators and barriers to use: a study protocol

Authors: Sandra Dunn, Ann E. Sprague, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Ian D. Graham, Monica Taljaard, Deshayne Fell, Wendy E. Peterson, Elizabeth Darling, JoAnn Harrold, Graeme N. Smith, Jessica Reszel, Andrea Lanes, Carolyn Truskoski, Jodi Wilding, Deborah Weiss, Mark Walker

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There are wide variations in maternal-newborn care practices and outcomes across Ontario. To help institutions and care providers learn about their own performance, the Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario has implemented an audit and feedback system, the Maternal-Newborn Dashboard (MND), for all hospitals providing maternal-newborn care. The dashboard provides (1) near real-time feedback, with site-specific and peer comparison data about six key performance indicators; (2) a visual display of evidence-practice gaps related to the indicators; and (3) benchmarks to provide direction for practice change. This study aims to evaluate the effects of the dashboard, dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitation/support needs that influence the use of this audit and feedback system to improve performance. The objectives of this study are to (1) evaluate the effect of implementing the dashboard across Ontario; (2) explore factors that potentially explain differences in the use of the MND among hospitals; (3) measure factors potentially associated with differential effectiveness of the MND; and (4) identify factors that predict differences in hospital performance.

Methods/design

A mixed methods design includes (1) an interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the effect of the intervention on six indicators, (2) key informant interviews with a purposeful sample of directors/managers from up to 20 maternal-newborn care hospitals to explore factors that influence the use of the dashboard, (3) a provincial survey of obstetrical directors/managers from all maternal-newborn hospitals in the province to measure factors that influence the use of the dashboard, and (4) a multivariable generalized linear mixed effects regression analysis of the indicators at each hospital to quantitatively evaluate the change in practice following implementation of the dashboard and to identify factors most predictive of use.

Discussion

Study results will provide essential data to develop knowledge translation strategies for facilitating practice change, which can be further evaluated through a future cluster randomized trial.
Literature
1.
2.
Sprague AE, Dunn S, Fell D, Harrold J, Walker M, Kelly S, et al. Measuring quality in maternal-newborn care: developing a clinical dashboard. J Obstet Gynecol Canada. 2013;35:29–38.CrossRef
3.
Dunn S, Bottomley J, Ali A, Walker M. 2008 Niday Perinatal Database quality audit. Chronic Dis Inj Can. 2011;32:32–42.PubMed
4.
Dunn S, Sprague AE, Fell DB, Dy J, Harrold J, Lamontagne B, et al. The use of a quality indicator to reduce elective repeat caesarean section for low-risk women before 39 weeks’ gestation: the Eastern Ontario experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2013;35:306–16.CrossRef
5.
Sun L, Walker M, Cao H, Duan TK. Assisted reproductive technology and placenta-mediated adverse pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:818–24.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Xie R, Cao H, Hong B, Sprague AE, Walker M, Wen SW. Occurrence and predictors of vacuum and forceps used sequentially for vaginal birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:317–22.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Hysong S, Teal C, Khan M, Haidet P. Improving quality of care through improved audit and feedback. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1–10.CrossRef
8.
Brehaut JC, Colquhoun HL, Eva KW, Carroll K, Sales A, Michie S, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:435–41.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6, CD000259.
10.
Thielman J, Konnyu K, Grimshaw J, Moher D. What is the evidence supporting universal versus risk-based screening for group B streptococcal infection in newborns? Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Ottawa; 2011.
11.
Konnyu K, Grimshaw J, Moher D. What are the drivers of in-hospital formula supplementation in healthy term neonates and what is the effectiveness of hospital based interventions designed to reduce formula supplementation? Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Ottawa; 2010.
12.
Konnyu K, Grimshaw J, Moher D. What are the maternal and newborn outcomes associated with episiotomy during spontaneous vaginal delivery. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Ottawa; 2011.
13.
Konnyu K, Grimshaw J, Moher D. What is known about the maternal and newborn risks of elective induction of women at term? Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Ottawa; 2011.
14.
Khangura S, Grimshaw J, Moher D. What is known about the timing of elective repeat cesarean section? Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Ottawa; 2010.
15.
Glantz JC. Rates of labour induction and primary cesarean delivery do not correlate with rates of adverse neonatal outcome in level I hospitals. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2011;24:636–42.CrossRef
16.
17.
Morgan MB, Branstetter BF, Mates J, Chang PJ. Flying blind: using a digital dashboard to navigate a complex PACS environment. J Digit Imaging. 2006;19:69–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Roberts DH, Gilmartin GS, Neeman N, Schulze JE, Cannistraro S, Ngo LH. Design and measurement of quality improvement indicators in ambulatory pulmonary care: creating a “culture of quality” in an academic pulmonary division. Chest. 2009;136:1134–40.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Rioux C, Grandbastien B, Astagneau P. Impact of a six-year control programme on surgical site infections in France: results of the INCISO surveillance. J Hosp Infect. 2007;66:217–23.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zaydfudim V, Dossett LA, Starmer JM, Arbogast PG, Feurer ID, Ray WA, et al. Implementation of a real-time compliance dashboard to help reduce SICU ventilator-associated pneumonia with the ventilator bundle. Arch Surg. 2009;144:1–7.CrossRef
21.
Grimshaw J, Campbell M, Eccles M, Steen N. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for evaluating guideline implementation strategies. Fam Pract. 2000;17:s11–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Br Med J. 2000;321:694–6.CrossRef
23.
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, Gutmann ML, Hanson WE. Advanced mixed methods research designs. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. p. 209–40.
24.
Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework—a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19:297–304.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA; 2002.
26.
Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27:299–309.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ramsay CR, Matowe L, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE. Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:613–23.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hawkins NG, Sanson-Fisher RW, Shakeshaft A, D’Este C, Green LW. The multiple baseline design for evaluating population-based research. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:162–8.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Yin RK. Rival explanations as an alternative to reforms as “experiments”. In: Bickman L, editor. Validity Soc Exp. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications; 2000. p. 239–66.
30.
Kleck G, Britt CL, Bordua DJ. Emperor has no clothes: using interrupted time series designs to evaluate social policy impact. Firearms Public Policy. 2000;12:197.
31.
Gillings D, Makuc D, Siegel E. Analysis of interrupted time series mortality trends: an example to evaluate regionalized perinatal care. Am J Public Health. 1981;71:38–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
England E. How interrupted time series analysis can evaluate guideline implementation. Pharm J. 2005;275:344–7.
33.
Kutner MH, Machtsheim C, Neter J. Applied linear regression models. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2004.
34.
Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2013.
35.
36.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
37.
Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1999. p. 33–45.
38.
39.
Mason M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Qual Soc Res. 2010;11(3):Art 8.
40.
Attieh R, Gagnon M-P, Estabrooks CA, Légaré F, Ouimet M, Roch G, et al. Organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care: a review of theoretical components. Implement Sci. 2013;8:138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Gagnon M-P, Labarthe J, Légaré F, Ouimet M, Estabrooks CA, Roch G, et al. Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care. Implement Sci. 2011;6:72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
43.
Thorne S. Interpretive description. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press; 2008.
44.
NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd; 2015.
45.
Wolcott HF. Tranforming qualitative data: description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1994.
46.
Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;23:77–84.
47.
Lincoln YS, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1985.
48.
Maxwell J. Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London: Sage Publications; 2005.
49.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Dillman DA. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
51.
52.
Weiner B. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Sci. 2009;4:1–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A mixed methods evaluation of the maternal-newborn dashboard in Ontario: dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitators and barriers to use: a study protocol
Authors
Sandra Dunn
Ann E. Sprague
Jeremy M. Grimshaw
Ian D. Graham
Monica Taljaard
Deshayne Fell
Wendy E. Peterson
Elizabeth Darling
JoAnn Harrold
Graeme N. Smith
Jessica Reszel
Andrea Lanes
Carolyn Truskoski
Jodi Wilding
Deborah Weiss
Mark Walker
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0427-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Discrepancies between qualitative and quantitative evaluation of randomised controlled trial results: achieving clarity through mixed methods triangulation

Study protocol

Cluster randomized trial of a multilevel evidence-based quality improvement approach to tailoring VA Patient Aligned Care Teams to the needs of women Veterans

Research

Bridging the gap between pragmatic intervention design and theory: using behavioural science tools to modify an existing quality improvement programme to implement “Sepsis Six”

Systematic review

Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update)

Debate

Implementation, context and complexity

Research

Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of scientists and policy makers in China and Canada