↓ Skip to main content

Using segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data to assess colonoscopy quality outcomes of a web-enhanced implementation toolkit to support evidence-based practices for bowel…

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data to assess colonoscopy quality outcomes of a web-enhanced implementation toolkit to support evidence-based practices for bowel preparation: a study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0276-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex T. Ramsey, Julia Maki, Beth Prusaczyk, Yan Yan, Jean Wang, Rebecca Lobb

Abstract

While there is convincing evidence on interventions to improve bowel preparation for patients, the evidence on how to implement these evidence-based practices (EBPs) in outpatient colonoscopy settings is less certain. The Strategies to Improve Colonoscopy (STIC) study compares the effect of two implementation strategies, physician education alone versus physician education plus an implementation toolkit for staff, on adoption of three EBPs (split-dosing of bowel preparation, low-literacy education, teach-back) to improve pre-procedure and intra-procedure quality measures. The implementation toolkit contains a staff education module, website containing tools to support staff in delivering EBPs, tailored patient education materials, and brief consultation with staff to determine how the EBPs can be integrated into the existing workflow. Given adaptations to the implementation plan and intentional flexibility in the delivery of the EBPs, we utilize a pragmatic study to balance external validity with demonstrating effectiveness of the implementation strategies. Participants will include all outpatient colonoscopy physicians, staff, and patients from a convenience sample of six endoscopy settings. Aim #1 will explore the relative effect of two strategies to implement patient-level EBPs on adoption and clinical quality outcomes. We will assess the change in level and trends of clinical quality outcomes (i.e., adequacy of bowel preparation, adenoma detection) using segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data with two groups (intervention and delayed start). Aim #2 will examine the influence of organizational readiness to change on EBP implementation. We use a PRECIS diagram to reflect the extent to which each indicator of the study was pragmatic versus explanatory, revealing a largely pragmatic study. Implementation challenges have already motivated several adaptations to the original plan, reflecting the nature of implementation in real-world healthcare settings. The pragmatic study responds to the evolving needs of its healthcare partners and allows for flexibility in intervention delivery, thereby informing clinical decision-making in real-world settings. The current study will provide information about what works (intervention effectiveness), for whom it works (influence of Medicaid versus other insurance), in which contexts it works (setting characteristics that influence implementation), and how it works best (comparison of implementation strategies).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Librarian 9 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Other 22 28%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Engineering 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 18 23%