Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34112265›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2021

Implementation strategies in the context of medication reconciliation: a qualitative study.

Deonni P Stolldorf, Sheila H Ridner, Timothy J Vogus, Christianne L Roumie, Jeffrey L Schnipper, Mary S Dietrich, David G Schlundt, Sunil Kripalani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Deonni P StolldorfVanderbilt University School of Nursing, 461 21st Ave S., Nashville, TN, USA. Deonni.stolldorf@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1352-5397
Sheila H RidnerVanderbilt University School of Nursing, 461 21st Ave S., Nashville, TN, USA.
Timothy J VogusVanderbilt University Owen Graduate School of Management, 401 21st Ave S., Nashville, TN, USA.
Christianne L RoumieVanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Drive, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA.
Jeffrey L SchnipperDivision of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St., Boston, MA, USA.
Mary S DietrichVanderbilt University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN, USA.
David G SchlundtVanderbilt University Department of Psychology, 323 Wilson Hall, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN, 37240, USA.
Sunil KripalaniCenter for Clinical Quality and Implementation Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave, Suite 1200, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.

Funding

The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR)UL1TR000445 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Implementing and Sustaining Complex Interdisciplinary Healthcare Interventions: Learning from Medication ReconciliationK01HS025486 · AHRQ · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI STOLLDORF, DEONNI P · 2017 to 2019
$427k
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality K01HS025486AHRQ HHS K01 HS025486NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication reconciliation (MedRec) is an important patient safety initiative that aims to prevent patient harm from medication errors. Yet, the implementation and sustainability of MedRec interventions have been challenging due to contextual barriers like the lack of interprofessional communication (among pharmacists, nurses, and providers) and limited organizational capacity. How to best implement MedRec interventions remains unclear. Guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, we report the differing strategies hospital implementation teams used to implement an evidence-based MedRec Toolkit (the MARQUIS Toolkit).

methodsA qualitative study was conducted with implementation teams and executive leaders of hospitals participating in the federally funded "Implementation of a Medication Reconciliation Toolkit to Improve Patient Safety" (known as MARQUIS2) research study. Data consisted of transcripts from web-based focus groups and individual interviews, as well as meeting minutes. Interview data were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison technique.

resultsData were collected from 16 hospitals using 2 focus groups, 3 group interviews, and 11 individual interviews, 10 sites' meeting minutes, and an email interview of an executive. Major categories of implementation strategies predominantly mirrored the ERIC strategies of "Plan," "Educate," "Restructure," and "Quality Management." Participants rarely used the ERIC strategies of finance and attending to policy context. Two new non-ERIC categories of strategies emerged-"Integration" and "Professional roles and responsibilities." Of the 73 specific strategies in the ERIC taxonomy, 32 were used to implement the MARQUIS Toolkit and 11 new, and non-ERIC strategies were identified (e.g., aligning with existing initiatives and professional roles and responsibilities).

conclusionsComplex interventions like the MARQUIS MedRec Toolkit can benefit from the ERIC taxonomy, but adaptations and new strategies (and even categories) are necessary to fully capture the range of approaches to implementation.

Indexed as

ERICImplementation strategiesMedication reconciliationQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID34112265
PMCPMC8193884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.