NDLI: Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Lloyd, Amy Joseph-Williams, Natalie Edwards, Adrian Rix, Andrew Elwyn, Glyn
Abstract	Background Implementing shared decision making into routine practice is proving difficult, despite considerable interest from policy-makers, and is far more complex than merely making decision support interventions available to patients. Few have reported successful implementation beyond research studies. MAking Good Decisions In Collaboration (MAGIC) is a multi-faceted implementation program, commissioned by The Health Foundation (UK), to examine how best to put shared decision making into routine practice. In this paper, we investigate healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing shared decision making during the MAGIC program, to examine the work required to implement shared decision making and to inform future efforts. Methods The MAGIC program approached implementation of shared decision making by initiating a range of interventions including: providing workshops; facilitating development of brief decision support tools (Option Grids); initiating a patient activation campaign (‘Ask 3 Questions’); gathering feedback using Decision Quality Measures; providing clinical leads meetings, learning events, and feedback sessions; and obtaining executive board level support. At 9 and 15 months (May and November 2011), two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in three secondary care teams to explore views on the impact of these interventions. Interview data were coded by two reviewers using a framework derived from the Normalization Process Theory. Results A total of 54 interviews were completed with 31 healthcare professionals. Partial implementation of shared decision making could be explained using the four components of the Normalization Process Theory: ‘coherence,’ ‘cognitive participation,’ ‘collective action,’ and ‘reflexive monitoring.’ Shared decision making was integrated into routine practice when clinical teams shared coherent views of role and purpose (‘coherence’). Shared decision making was facilitated when teams engaged in developing and delivering interventions (‘cognitive participation’), and when those interventions fit with existing skill sets and organizational priorities (‘collective action’) resulting in demonstrable improvements to practice (‘reflexive monitoring’). The implementation process uncovered diverse and conflicting attitudes toward shared decision making; ‘coherence’ was often missing. Conclusions The study showed that implementation of shared decision making is more complex than the delivery of patient decision support interventions to patients, a portrayal that often goes unquestioned. Normalizing shared decision making requires intensive work to ensure teams have a shared understanding of the purpose of involving patients in decisions, and undergo the attitudinal shifts that many health professionals feel are required when comprehension goes beyond initial interpretations. Divergent views on the value of engaging patients in decisions remain a significant barrier to implementation.
Related Links	https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/1748-5908-8-102.pdf
Ending Page	9
Page Count	9
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	17485908
DOI	10.1186/1748-5908-8-102
Journal	Implementation Science
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	8
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2013-09-05
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Health Services Research Public Health Health Informatics Health Policy Health Administration Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Shared decision making Implementation Patient-centered care Normalization Process Theory
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Health Policy Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Health Informatics
Journal Impact Factor	8.8/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	9.2/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences

From shared decision making to patient-centered decision making

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices

Impact of DECISION + 2 on patient and physician assessment of shared decision making implementation in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory infections

Implementation of the uterine fibroids Option Grid patient decision aids across five organizational settings: a randomized stepped-wedge study protocol

The UPFRONT project: tailored implementation and evaluation of a patient decision aid to support shared decision-making about management of symptomatic uterine fibroids

A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes

Implementation of secondary fracture prevention services after hip fracture: a qualitative study using extended Normalization Process Theory

Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)

Similar Documents

Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences

From shared decision making to patient-centered decision making

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices

Impact of DECISION + 2 on patient and physician assessment of shared decision making implementation in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory infections

Implementation of the uterine fibroids Option Grid patient decision aids across five organizational settings: a randomized stepped-wedge study protocol

The UPFRONT project: tailored implementation and evaluation of a patient decision aid to support shared decision-making about management of symptomatic uterine fibroids

A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes

Implementation of secondary fracture prevention services after hip fracture: a qualitative study using extended Normalization Process Theory

Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)