Interprofessional Health Team Communication About Hospital Discharge

Abstract

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided formative evaluation of the implementation of a redesigned interprofessional team rounding process. The purpose of the redesigned process was to improve health team communication about hospital discharge. Themes emerging from interviews of patients, nurses, and providers revealed the inherent value and positive characteristics of the new process, but also workflow, team hierarchy, and process challenges to successful implementation. The evaluation identified actionable recommendations for modifying the implementation process.

Effects of Implementing a Health Team Communication Redesign on Hospital Readmissions Within 30 Days

“…These differences could have affected patient sample selection and completeness of data collection. Barriers to implementation of the process redesign have previously been reported (Bahr et al, ).…”

Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements

“…Twenty papers referred to nine different existing frameworks and five to the development of frameworks for evaluation of specific initiatives. Studies came from a wide range of locations: seven from the UK (Adegoke, Hofman, Kongnyuy, & van den Broek, ; Byng, Norman, Redfern, & Jones, ; Dickerson, Green, & Blass, ; Froggatt & Hockley, ; Furness et al., ; MacArthur, ; Themessl‐Huber, Lazenbatt, & Taylor, ), six from USA (Bahr et al., ; Eisenbise, ; Hill et al., ; Hundley, ; Serowoky, George, & Yarandi, ; Sockolow, ), three from Australia (Gardner, Gardner, & O'Connell, ; Hungerford, Prosser, & Davey, ; Wand, White, & Patching, ), two from Canada (Bainbridge, Brazil, Ploeg, Krueger, & Taniguchi, ; Yonge, Myrick, & Ferguson, ), two from Switzerland (Bryant‐Lukosius et al., ; Chmiel, Shaha, & Schneider, ) and one each from Africa (Bergstrom et al., ), Norway (Varsi, Ekstedt, Gammon, & Ruland, ), Spain (Oroviogoicoechea & Watson, ), Sweden (Frykman, von Thiele Schwarz, Muntlin Athlin, Hasson, & Mazzocato, ) and Thailand (Jaipakdee, Jiamjarasrangsi, Lohsoonthorn, & Lertmaharit, ). A broad range of nursing and midwifery interventions and programs represented community settings and hospitals in rural and metropolitan locations.…”

“…The Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder et al., ) was useful for formative evaluations including developing interviews as well as organising findings (Bahr et al., ) and managing the breadth and depth of complex interventions (Varsi et al., ). The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service (PARIHS) framework (Rycroft‐Malone, ) was used to provide structure to describe a health system (Bergstrom et al., ).…”

“…While frameworks are always underpinned by theoretical principles, a discussion of theory was absent in a number of papers in this review (Adegoke et al., ; Bahr et al., ; Chmiel et al., ; Furness et al., ; Gardner et al., ; Jaipakdee et al., ; Serowoky et al., ; Themessl‐Huber et al., ). A number of authors argued that without theory, findings cannot be adequately interpreted and the plausibility or generalisability of findings may be limited (Frykman et al., ; Hill et al., ).…”

“…The PARIHS (Moore et al, 2015) framework promoted consideration of a broader range of factors influencing the uptake of the intervention including resources, stakeholder commitment and community involvement (Bergstrom et al, 2012). The CFIR (Damschroder et al, 2009) helped users identify factors that would likely impact on the success and sustainability of an intervention (Bahr et al, 2017;Varsi et al, 2015). A weakness of the CFIR was its broad, big picture view that limited successful implementation as details were hidden (Varsi et al, 2015).…”