Advertisement

Disease Management & Health Outcomes

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 85–90 | Cite as

Promoting the Implementation of Best-Practice Guidelines Using a Matrix Tool

Focus on Cancer Care
  • Karen LuxfordEmail author
  • David Hill
  • Richard Bell
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background/Objectives

Internationally, numerous clinical practice guidelines have been developed and disseminated with the intention of improving patient care. Research indicates that to improve practice in accord with clinical evidence, change is required by individual clinicians and teams of clinicians as well as at an organizational and policy level. A matrix framework has been developed by the Australian Cancer Network’s Guideline Implementation Steering Committee, using the theory of innovation adoption. The matrix is based on the characteristics of innovations that favor rapid adoption and wide acceptance. Within this construct, new clinical guidelines are equated to an ‘innovation’. The objective of the present study was to pilot this matrix tool to assess its usefulness for individuals and organizations aiming to develop strategies to promote guideline implementation in cancer care.

Methods

The matrix was piloted at a workshop with 50 attendees, primarily colorectal surgeons and oncologists. Six key areas relating to guidelines were included in the matrix: (i) compatibility with current practice; (ii) relative advantage over current practice; (iii) observability of outcomes; (iv) trialability; (v) simplicity of use; and (vi) perceived barriers. Three examples of guideline recommendations for the management of colorectal cancer were used during the pilot, covering evidence about best clinical care and psychosocial support: (i) people with high-risk rectal cancer should be referred for consideration of adjuvant preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy in a multidisciplinary setting; (ii) people with resected Dukes’ C (i.e. node-positive) colon cancer should be referred for consideration of adjuvant therapy in a multidisciplinary setting; and (iii) psychosocial interventions should be a component of care as they can improve the quality of life in patients with cancer. After discussion of the guideline examples, the attendees completed matrix tool forms to document their perceptions regarding the consistency of current practice with the example guidelines and barriers to practice change. Quantitative responses were assessed by frequency analysis and qualitative responses were assessed by thematic analysis.

Results

There was consistency in the perceived views of workshop attendees around the six key areas included in the matrix. The perceived barriers that were highlighted by the respondents included the lack of available resources (staff, equipment, and funding); lack of multidisciplinary clinics, referral processes, and access to appropriate services; and lack of knowledge of benefit. Perceived facilitators of change included lead clinicians, consumer advocates, government, service administration, professional colleges, and cancer organizations.

Conclusions

The pilot process indicated that the matrix is a tool that could be of use to groups and individuals aiming to develop targeted change strategies to promote evidence-based practice improvement.

Keywords

Implementation Strategy Psychosocial Intervention Guideline Recommendation Health Service Delivery Guideline Implementation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Colorectal Group of the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group for piloting the matrix tool, and Susan Fitzpatrick (The Cancer Council Victoria) and Fiona Booth (National Breast Cancer Centre) for assistance with collation of the resultant data.

The authors did not receive any funding to assist with preparation of this study and have no conflict of interest related to the contents of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    CancerStats Monograph 2004. London, UK: Cancer Research UK, 2004Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Breast Cancer Centre. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of early breast cancer. 2nd ed. Canberra, Australia: National Breast Cancer Centre, 2001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Australian Cancer Network and National Breast Cancer Centre. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Sydney, Australia: National Breast Cancer Centre, 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clinical Oncological Society of Australia and Australian Cancer Network. Guidelines for the prevention, early detection and management of colorectal cancer. Canberra, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council, 1999Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of lung cancer. Sydney, Australia: The Cancer Council Australia, 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hill D, Jamrozik K, White V, et al. Surgical management of breast cancer in Australia in 1995. Sydney, Australia: National Breast Cancer Centre, 1999Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clinical Governance Unit 2002. The national colorectal cancer care survey: Australian clinical practice in 2000. Melbourne, Australia: National Cancer Control Initiative, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vlayen J, Aertgeerts B, Hannes K, et al. A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: multiple similarities and one common deficit. Int J Qual Health Care 2005 Jun; 17(3): 235–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ 1997; 315: 418–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grol R, Grimshaw J. Evidence-based implementation of evidence-based medicine. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1999; 25: 503–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oxman A, Thomson MA, Davis DA, et al. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995; 153: 1423–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, et al. Getting research findings into practice: closing the gap between research and practice. An overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998; 317: 465–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ellrodt AG, Conner L, Riedinger M, et al. Measuring and improving physician compliance with clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 277–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8(6): 1–85Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. Is evidence-based implementation of evidence-based care possible? Med J Aust 2004; 180: S50–1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moss F, Garside P, Dawson S. Organisational change: key to quality improvement. Qual Health Care 1998; 7 Suppl.: S1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sonnad SS. Organizational tactics for the successful assimilation of medical practice guidelines. Health Care Manage Rev 1998; 23: 30–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M. Getting evidence into clinical practice: an organisational behaviour perspective. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000; 2: 96–102Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A. Translating guidelines into practice: a systematic review of theoretical concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1997; 157: 408–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hindle D, Natsagdorj T. Treating organizational illness: a practical approach to facilitating improvements in health care. Aust Health Rev 2002; 25: 171–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers EM. New product adoption and diffusion. J Consum Res 1976; 2: 290–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York (NY): The Free Press, 1995Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanson-Fisher RW, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. The science of changing providers’ behaviour: the missing link in evidence-based practice. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 205–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999; 282: 1458–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Breast Cancer CentreSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.The Cancer Council VictoriaMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Cancer ServicesBarwon HealthGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations