Cited by 77Health Policy Implementation SciencePatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealth Sciences Research and Education

The demonstration of a theory-based approach to the design of localized patient safety interventions

Open access
Taylor, Natalie, Lawton, Rebecca, Slater, Beverley, Foy, Robbie·2013·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of unsafe care in healthcare systems globally. Interventions to implement recommended practice often have modest and variable effects. Ideally, selecting and adapting interventions according to local contexts should enhance effects. However, the means by which this can happen is seldom systematic, based on theory, or made transparent. This work aimed to demonstrate the applicability, feasibility, and acceptability of a theoretical domains framework implementation (TDFI) approach for co-designing patient safety interventions. METHODS: We worked with three hospitals to support the implementation of evidence-based guidance to reduce the risk of feeding into misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes. Our stepped process, informed by the TDF and key principles from implementation literature, entailed: involving stakeholders; identifying target behaviors; identifying local factors (barriers and levers) affecting behavior change using a TDF-based questionnaire; working with stakeholders to generate specific local strategies to address key barriers; and supporting stakeholders to implement strategies. Exit interviews and audit data collection were undertaken to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this approach. RESULTS: Following audit and discussion, implementation teams for each Trust identified the process of checking the positioning of nasogastric tubes prior to feeding as the key behavior to target. Questionnaire results indicated differences in key barriers between organizations. Focus groups generated innovative, generalizable, and adaptable strategies for overcoming barriers, such as awareness events, screensavers, equipment modifications, and interactive learning resources. Exit interviews identified themes relating to the benefits, challenges, and sustainability of this approach. Time trend audit data were collected for 301 patients over an 18-month period for one Trust, suggesting clinically significant improved use of pH and documentation of practice following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF is a feasible and acceptable framework to guide the implementation of patient safety interventions. The stepped TDFI approach engages healthcare professionals and facilitates contextualization in identifying the target behavior, eliciting local barriers, and selecting strategies to address those barriers. This approach may be of use to implementation teams and policy makers, although our promising findings confirm the need for a more rigorous evaluation; a balanced block evaluation is currently underway.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-8-123

Cites

58 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Vincent C Patient Safety 2011 Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, N., Lawton, R., Slater, B., & Foy, R.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Bradford Royal Infirmary (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Taylor, Natalie
  • Lawton, Rebecca
  • Slater, Beverley
  • Foy, Robbie
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2013-10-16
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
123-123
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128367017
Cited by
77
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
patient safety interventions, Theoretical Domains Framework, implementation research, co-design, nasogastric tube feeding, tube placement, barriers to behavior change, local context adaptation, stakeholder engagement, evidence-based practice implementation, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Feasibility Studies, Hospitalization, Humans, Intubation, Gastrointestinal, Models, Theoretical, Surveys and Questionnaires, Focus Groups, Safety Management, Risk Reduction Behavior, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review