ArticleBMC health services research2024
Defining the transition from new to normal: a qualitative investigation of the clinical change process.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding how and when a new evidence-based clinical intervention becomes standard practice is crucial to ensure that healthcare is delivered in alignment with the most up-to-date knowledge. However, rigorous methods are needed to determine when a new clinical practice becomes normalized to the standard of care. To address this gap, this study qualitatively explores how, when, and why a clinical practice change becomes normalized within healthcare organizations.
methodsWe used purposive sampling to recruit clinical leaders who worked in quality improvement and/or implementation science in diverse health contexts. Enrolled participants completed semi-structured interviews around implementing evidence-based practices. Qualitative data was inductively and deductively analyzed, and was guided by a modified version of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) framework to identify salient themes. Additionally, identified normalization strategies were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) project.
resultsA total of 17 individuals were interviewed. Two categories of themes emerged: 1) signals of when a new clinical practice is considered to be normalized within clinical care; and 2) strategies utilized to normalize new clinical innovations. Participants described four key signals for identifying when a novel clinical practice becomes the new normal: 1) integrated seamlessly into existing workflows; 2) scaled across the entire organizational unit; 3) has strong staff buy-in and ownership; and 4) no longer needs monitoring and evaluation to be sustained. Major strategies to normalize new clinical interventions included: 1) taking a patient approach that starts slow and gains momentum; 2) identifying and using methods to gain staff buy-in and ownership; and 3) conducting ongoing measurement of progress towards normalization.
conclusionsThe results offer valuable insight into the indicators that signify when a novel clinical practice becomes normalized, and the strategies employed to facilitate this transition. These findings can inform future research to develop instruments that implementation leaders can use to systematically measure the clinical change process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.