摘要
Purpose: The implementation of routine outcome measurement was initiated as a quality improvement initiative in a unit delivering intensive functional rehabilitation for people with lower limb amputation. Two years post-implementation, completion rates remained low which raised the need to gain an indepth understanding of the factors that might impact the systematic use of Outcome Measures (OMs). Method: A qualitative exploratory study embedded in the ongoing quality improvement initiative was designed. Data were gathered through a focus group with members of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team. A deductive content analysis was performed using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide to explore factors that impact routine outcome measurement. Results: Respondents perceived OMs as valid and offering clear advantages in clinical practice. At the organizational level, lack of fit with clinical practice, loss of project leaders and lack of clear management directives had negative repercussions on the use of OMs. Conclusion: Our results suggest that a dedicated project leader throughout the implementation process and effective communication may contribute to bypassing barriers associated to practice changes leading to a more systematic use of OMs among clinicians.
Purpose: The implementation of routine outcome measurement was initiated as a quality improvement initiative in a unit delivering intensive functional rehabilitation for people with lower limb amputation. Two years post-implementation, completion rates remained low which raised the need to gain an indepth understanding of the factors that might impact the systematic use of Outcome Measures (OMs). Method: A qualitative exploratory study embedded in the ongoing quality improvement initiative was designed. Data were gathered through a focus group with members of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team. A deductive content analysis was performed using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide to explore factors that impact routine outcome measurement. Results: Respondents perceived OMs as valid and offering clear advantages in clinical practice. At the organizational level, lack of fit with clinical practice, loss of project leaders and lack of clear management directives had negative repercussions on the use of OMs. Conclusion: Our results suggest that a dedicated project leader throughout the implementation process and effective communication may contribute to bypassing barriers associated to practice changes leading to a more systematic use of OMs among clinicians.
