Barriers and facilitators to implementing continuous quality improvement programs in colonoscopy services: a mixed methods systematic review

Background and aim: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) programs may result in quality of care and outcome improvement. However, the implementation of such programs has proven to be very challenging. This mixed methods systematic review identifies barriers and facilitators pertaining to the implementation of CQI programs in colonoscopy services and how they relate to endoscopists, nurses, managers, and patients.

Methods: We developed a search strategy adapted to 15 databases. Studies had to report on the implementation of a CQI intervention and identified barriers or facilitators relating to any of the four groups of actors directly concerned by the provision of colonoscopies. The quality of the selected studies was assessed and findings were extracted, categorized, and synthesized using a generic extraction grid customized through an iterative process.

Results: We extracted 99 findings from the 15 selected publications. Although involving all actors is the most cited factor, the literature mainly focuses on the facilitators and barriers associated with the endoscopists’ perspective. The most reported facilitators to CQI implementation are perception of feasibility, adoption of a formative approach, training and education, confidentiality, and assessing a limited number of quality indicators. Receptive attitudes, a sense of ownership and perceptions of positive impacts also facilitate the implementation. Finally, an organizational environment conducive to quality improvement has to be inclusive of all user groups, explicitly supportive, and provide appropriate resources.

Conclusion: Our findings corroborate the current models of adoption of innovations. However, a significant knowledge gap remains with respect to barriers and facilitators pertaining to nurses, patients, and managers.

• References

• 1 Leddin D, Hunt R, Champion M et al. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation: Guidelines on colon cancer screening. Can J Gastroenterol 2004; 18: 93-99
• 2 DeGroff A, Boehm J, Goode Green S et al. Facilitators and challenges to start-up of the colorectal cancer screening demonstration program. Prev Chronic Dis 2008; 5: A39
• 3 Pignone M. Challenges in implementation of effective and efficient colon cancer screening. Dig Liver Dis 2007; 39: 251-252
• 4 Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. New Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1106-1114
• 5 Miller A, Candas B, Berthelot JM et al. Pertinence et faisabilité d'un programme de dépistage du cancer colorectal au Québec [Relevance and feasibility of a colorectal cancer screening program in Quebec]. Quebec City: Institut national de santé publique du Québec; 2009
• 6 Colorectal cancer screening advisory group. Report of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Advisory Group. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2006
• 7 Misra T, Lalor E, Fedorak RN. Endoscopic perforation rates at a Canadian university teaching hospital. Can J Gastroenterol 2004; 18: 221-226
• 8 Singh H, Turner D, Xue L et al. Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies. JAMA 2006; 295: 2366-2373
• 9 Zappa M, Castiglione G, Grazzini G et al. “Does fecal occult blood testing really reduce mortality? A reanalysis of systematic review data.” by Moayyedi P and Achkar E. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2433-2434
• 10 Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; CD001216
• 11 Kahi CJ, Azzouz F, Juliar BE et al. Survival of elderly persons undergoing colonoscopy: implications for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 544-550
• 12 National Endoscopy Team. Endoscopy Global Rating Scale. Available at: https://www.jagaccreditation.org/Page.aspx?ID=5 Accessed June 6, 2015
• 13 Strul H, Kariv R, Leshno M et al. The prevalence rate and anatomic location of colorectal adenoma and cancer detected by colonoscopy in average-risk individuals aged 40-80 years. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 255-262
• 14 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1872-1885
• 15 Sewitch MJ, Dube C, Brien S et al. Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 25-32
• 16 Nadeem E, Olin SS, Hill LC et al. Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review. Milbank Q 2013; 91: 354-394
• 17 Sollecito WA, Johnson JK. Factors influencing the application and diffusion of CQI in health care. In: Sollecito WA, Johnson JK. (eds.) McLaughlin and Kaluzny’s Continuous Quality Improvement in Health Care. 4th edn. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2011: 49-74
• 18 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F et al. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004; 82: 581-629
• 19 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P et al. Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations: a systematic literature review. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2008
• 20 Hilsden RJ, Rostom A, Dube C et al. Development and implementation of a comprehensive quality assurance program at a community endoscopy facility. Can J Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 547-554
• 21 Stebbing JF. Quality assurance of endoscopy units. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 361-370
• 22 Bosch M, van der Weijden T, Wensing M et al. Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 13: 161-168
• 23 Valori R. Quality improvements in endoscopy in England. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 14: 63-72
• 24 Hemingway P, Brereton N. What is a systematic review?. Available at http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-review.pdf (Accessed June 6, 2015)
• 25 Jobin G, Gagnon MP, Candas B et al. User’s perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 85
• 26 McKechnie LEF. Unstructured observation. In: Given LM. (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2008: 1072
• 27 Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Labrecque M et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst 2010; 36: 241-277
• 28 McGinn CA, Grenier S, Duplantie J et al. Comparison of user groups’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med 2011; 9: 46
• 29 Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10 (Suppl. 01) 6-20
• 30 The Cochrane Collaboration, JBI Research Unit. Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group. Available at http://cqim.cochrane.org/ (Accessed June 6, 2015)
• 31 Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud 2012; 49: 47-53
• 32 Ball JE, Osbourne J, Jowett S et al. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004; 329: 665-667
• 33 Sanaka MR, Super DM, Feldman ES et al. Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 97-103
• 34 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
• 35 Conigliaro R, Rossi A Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Commission. Implementation of sedation guidelines in clinical practice in Italy: results of a prospective longitudinal multicenter study. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 1137-1143
• 36 Imperiali G, Minoli G, Meucci GM et al. Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 314-318
• 37 Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S et al. Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 362-369
• 38 Abuksis G, Mor M, Segal N et al. A patient education program is cost-effective for preventing failure of endoscopic procedures in a gastroenterology department. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 1786-1790
• 39 Gall S, Bull J. Clinical risk: discharging patients with no-one at home. Gastroenterol Nurs 2004; 27: 111-114
• 40 De Jonge V, Nicolaas JS, Van Leerdam ME et al. The opinion of gastroenterologists towards quality assurance in endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: AB219
• 41 Cardella J, Coburn NG, Gagliardi A et al. Compliance, attitudes and barriers to post-operative colorectal cancer follow-up. J Eval Clin Pract 2008; 14: 407-415
• 42 Bampton PA, Sandford JJ, Young GP. Achieving long-term compliance with colonoscopic surveillance guidelines for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer in Australia. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 510-513
• 43 Naylor G, Gatta L, Butler A et al. Setting up a quality assurance program in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 701-707
• 44 Spiegel BM, Talley J, Shekelle P et al. Development and validation of a novel patient educational booklet to enhance colonoscopy preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 875-883
• 45 Hillyer GC, Basch CH, Basch CE et al. Gastroenterologists’ perceived barriers to optimal pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation: results of a national survey. J Cancer Educ 2012; 27: 526-532
• 46 Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Arai A et al. The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1253-1259
• 47 Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 50
• 48 Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008; 34: 228-243
• 49 Plsek PE, Wilson T. Complexity, leadership, and management in healthcare organisations. BMJ 2001; 323: 746-749
• 50 Safran DG, Miller W, Beckman H. Organizational dimensions of relationship-centered care. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21: 9-S15