Implementing best practice in infection prevention and control. A realist evaluation of the role of intermediaries

Background
Implementing best practice in healthcare is complex. There is evidence to suggest that certain individuals, collectively termed ‘intermediaries’, can contribute to implementation processes, but understanding exactly what happens and how intermediaries promote best practice is unclear.

Objectives
The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of intermediaries in promoting infection prevention, and provide an explanation about what works, for whom, how, and under which conditions.

Methods
Realist methodology was used as the underpinning explanatory framework for the study. From a concept mining of the existing literature, a set of hypothetical statements about the plausible range of context–mechanism–outcome propositions that postulate how intermediaries can contribute to promoting best practice were developed and evaluated.

Design
Case studies were conducted consecutively to refine and test the propositions. Data included semi-structured interviews (n = 32), non-participant observations (n = 5) and documentation review. Data were analysed by open coding, content and pattern matching.

Settings
Case studies were undertaken in two hospitals within the United Kingdom.

Participants
Purposive sampling was used to identify individuals within the organisations who had professional or organisational responsibilities for infection prevention. The inclusion criteria were; employees of the chosen organisations who would consent to take part in the study, participants with infection prevention responsibilities, adults over 18 years with the capacity to consent. The exclusion criteria were; participants outside of the chosen organisation, participants under 18 years of age, and participants who lacked the capacity to consent.

Results
Four context–mechanism–outcome configurations contribute to advancing our understanding about the potential of intermediaries to promote best practice. Findings showed that the ways in which intermediaries watch over practice (their human surveillance), promoted better adherence with infection control practices. Particular styles and approaches used by intermediaries led to individual staff feeling personally supported. Distinct ways of providing performance feedback for staff together with the policy discourse promoted good habitual behaviours. Practice-based teaching heightened awareness of individuals’ own practice and made learning more real.

Conclusions
Findings offer a new lens on the role of intermediaries in bridging the evidence to practice gap. As such they could be considered when reviewing or developing new interventions/programmes that use intermediaries to plug the gap between theory and practice. The findings could also be used to guide the design and development of new intermediary models in healthcare, to promote best practice and support the quality of patient care.

Baxter, P., Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative case study methodology: study
design and implementation for novice researchers. Qual. Rep. 13
(4), 544–559.
Biebel, K., Maciolek, S., Nicholson, J., Deborades-Jackson, G., Leslie, L., 2013.
Intermediaries promote the use of research evidence in children’s
behavioural health systems change. Psychiatry Issue Brief. 10 (4) .
Caelli, K., Ray, L., Mill, J., 2003. ‘Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in
generic qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2 (2), 1–24.
Casey, D., Houghton, C., 2010. Clarifying case study research: examples
from practice. Nurse Res. 17 (3), 41–51.
Chew, S., 2013. Institutionalising knowledge brokering as a sustainable
knowledge translation solution in healthcare: how can it work in
practice? Evid. Policy 9 (3), 335–351.
Cooper, R., 2013. Surveillance and uncertainty: community pharmacy
responses to over the counter medicine abuse. Health Soc. Care
Community 21 (3), 254–262.
Damschroder, L.J., Banaszak-Holl, J., Kowalski, C.P., Forman, J., Saint, S.,
Krein, S.L., 2009. The role of the ‘‘champion’’ in infection prevention:
results from a multisite qualitative study. Qual. Saf. Health Care 18
(6), 434–440.
Doumit, G., Gattellari, M., Grimshaw, J., O’Brien, M.A., 2007. Local opinion
leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
(Review). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (1), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub3, AN CD000125.
Ellis, L., 2003. Illuminative case study design: a new approach to the
evaluation of continuing professional education. Nurse Res. 10 (3),
48–59.
Elo, S., Kynga¨s, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis approach.Research
methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1), 107–115.
Ferguson, L., Milner, M., Snelgrove-Clarke, E., 2004. The role of
intermediaries: getting evidence into practice. J. Wound Ostomy
Continence Nurs. 31 (6), 325–327.
Gardam, M.A., Lemieux, C., Reason, P., van Dijk, M., Goel, V., 2009.
Healthcare-associated infections as patient safety indicators.
Healthc. Pap. 9 (3), 8–24.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago.
Griffiths, P., Renz, A., Hughes, J., Rafferty, A.M., 2009. Impact of organisation and management factors on infection control in hospitals: a
scoping review. J. Hosp. Infect. 73 (1), 1–14.
Grol, R., Grimshaw, J., 2003. From best evidence to best practice:
effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 362
(9391), 1225–1230.
Hammersely, M., Gomm, R., Foster, P., 2000. Case study and theory. In:
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., Foster, P. (Eds.), Case Study Method: Key
Issues, Key Texts. Sage, London, pp. 234–258.
Henderson, A.C., Harmon, S.M., Houser, J., 2010. A new state of surveillance? Applying Michel Foucault to modern motherhood.
Surveill. Soc. 7 (3–4), 231–247.
Hoong Sin, C., 2008. The role of intermediaries in getting evidence into
policy and practice: some useful lessons from examining consultancy–client relationships. Evid. Policy 4 (1), 85–103.
Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 35 (5), 715–728.
Huis, A., Schoonhoven, L., Grol, R., Borm, G., Adang, E., Hulscher, M., et al.,
2011. Helping hands: a cluster randomized trial to evaluate the
effectiveness of two different strategies for promoting hand hygiene
in hospital nurses. Implement. Sci. 6, 101.
Julnes, G., Mark, M.M., 1998. Knowledge construction in a realist world.
In: Henry, G.T., Julnes, G., Mark, M.M. (Eds.), Realist Evaluation: An
Emerging Theory in Support of Practice: New Directions for Program
Evaluation. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Koch, T., 1994. Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision
trail. J. Adv. Nurs. 19 (5), 976–986.
Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C.H.M., Potts, H.W.W., Wardle, J., 2010. How are
habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur. J. Soc.
Psychol. 40 (6), 998–1009.
Locock, L., Dopson, S., Chambers, D., Gabbay, J., 2001. Understanding the
role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Soc. Sci.
Med. 53 (6), 745–757.
Long, J., Cunningham, F., Braithwaite, J., 2013. Bridges, brokers and
boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review.
BMC Health Serv. Res. 13, 158.
Lyon, D., 2003. Surveillance as social sorting: computer codes and mobile
bodies. In: Lyon, D. (Ed.), Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk
and Digital Discrimination. Routledge, London.
Lyons, R., Warner, G., Langille, L., Phillips, S.J., 2006. Evidence in Action,
Acting on Evidence: A Casebook of Health Services and Policy Research Knowledge Translation Stories. Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, Ottawa Piloting knowledge brokers to promote integrated
stroke care in Atlantic Canada.
Marchal, B., van Belle, S., van Olmen, J., Hoeree, T., Kegels, G., 2012. Is
realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems research. Evaluation 18 (2),
192–212.
McEvoy, P., Richards, D., 2003. Critical realism: a way forward for evaluation research in nursing? J. Adv. Nurs. 43 (4), 411–420.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Millar, M., 2012. ‘Zero tolerance’ of avoidable infection in the English
National Health Service: avoiding the redistribution of burdens.
Public Health Ethics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/phe/phs035.
Milner, M., Estabrooks, C.A., Humphrey, C., 2005. Clinical nurse educators
as agents for change: increasing research utilisation in nursing practice. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 42 (8), 899–914.
Milner, M., Estabrooks, C.A., Myrick, F., 2006. Research utilisation and
clinical nurse educators: a systematic review. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 12
(6), 639–655.
Mintzberg, H., 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey.
National Institute Clinical Excellence, 2012. Prevention and Control of
Healthcare-Associated Infections. NICE, London.
Nilsen, P., Roback, K., Brostrom, A., Ellstrom, P., 2010. Creatures of habit:
accounting for the role of habit in implementing research on clinical
behaviour change. Implement. Sci. 7, 53.
Northouse, P.G., 2004. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications,
London.
Pawson, R., 2003. Nothing as practical as a good theory. Evaluation 9 (4),
471–490.
Pawson, R., 2004. Mentoring Relationships: An Explanatory Review. ESRC
UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 21.
Pawson, R., 2006. Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. Sage,
London.
Pawson, R., 2013. The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Sage
Publications, London.
Pawson, R., Tilley, N., 1997. Realistic Evaluation. Sage, London.
Pawson, R., Tilley, N., 2004. Realist Evaluation. British Cabinet Office,
London.
Pawson, R., Wong, G., Owen, L., 2011. Known knowns, known unknowns,
unknown unknowns: the predicament of evidence-based policy.
Am. J. Eval. 32 (4), 518–546.
Ploeg, J., Davis, B., Edwards, N., Gifford, W., Miller, P.E., 2007. Factors
influencing best-practice guideline implementation: lessons learned
from administrators, nursing staff, and project leaders. Worldviews
Evid. Based Nurs. 4 (4), 210–219.
Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., 2009. Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising
Research for Nursing Practice, 7th ed. Lippincott, Williams and
Wilkins, Wolters Kluwer.
Robertson, R., Jochelson, K., 2006. Interventions that Change Clinician
Behaviour: Mapping the Literature. NICE, London.
Robson, C., 1993. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists
and Practitioner–Researchers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. Free Press,
New York.
Rycroft-Malone, J., 2004. The PARIHS framework – a framework for
guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J. Nurs. Care
Qual. 19 (4), 297–304.
Rycroft-Malone, J., Fontenla, M., Bick, D., Seers, K., 2010. A realistic
evaluation: the case of protocol-based care. Implement. Sci. 5, 38.
Sax, H., Clack, L., Touveneau, S., da Jantarada, F., Pittet, D., Zingg, W., 2013.
Implementation of infection control best practice in intensive care
166 L. Williams et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies 60 (2016) 156–167
units throughout Europe: a mixed-method evaluation study.
Implement. Sci. 8, 24.
Soo, S., Berta, W., Baker, G.R., 2009. Role of champions in the implementation of patient safety practice change. Healthc. Q. 12, 123–128.
Spradley, J.P., 1980. Participant Observation. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers, Orlando, FL.
Stetler,C.B., Legro, M.W.,Rycroft-Malone, J., Bowman, C., Curran, G., Guihan,
M., et al., 2006. Role of ‘external facilitation’ in implementation of
researchfindings:a qualitative evaluationoffacilitation: experiences in
the Veterans Health Administration. Implement. Sci. 1, 23.
Storr, J., Wigglesworth, N., Kilpatrick, C., 2013. Integrating Human Factorswith Infection Prevention and Control. The Health Foundation,
London.
Stuart, C.C., 2003. Assessment, Supervision and Support in Clinical Practice. Churchill Livingstone, London.
Sykes, R.E., Larntz, K., Fox, J.C., 1976. Proximity and similarity effects on
frequency of interaction in a class of naval recruits. Sociometry 39 (3),
263–269.
Thompson, G.N., Estabrooks, C.A., Degner, L.F., 2006. Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: a literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 53 (6),
691–701.
Tilley, N., 2000. Realistic evaluation: an overview. In: The Founding
Conference of the Danish Evaluation Society.
Timmins, P., Miller, C., 2007. Making evaluations realistic:the challenge of
complexity. Support Learn. 22 (1), 9–16.
Walter, I., Nutley, S., Davies, H., 2006. What works to promote evidencebased practice? A cross-sector review. Evid. Policy 1 (3), 335–364.
Ward, V., House, A., Hamer, S., 2009. Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evid. Policy 5 (3),
267–279.
Watson, H., Booth, J., Whyte, R., 2010. Observation. In: Gerrish, K., Lacey,
A. (Eds.), The Research Process in Nursing. 6th ed. Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford.
Westhrop, G., 2014. Realist Impact Evaluation: An Introduction. The
Methods Lab.
Westhrop, G., Prins, E., Kusters, C., Hultink, M., Guijt, I., Brouwers, J., 2011.
Realist Evaluation: An Overview Report from an Expert Seminar.
Wageninen UR Centre for Development Innovation, The Netherlands.
Wheller, L., Morris, J., 2010. Evidence Reviews: What works in Training,
Behaviour Change and Implementing Guidance? HPIA Research,
Analysis and Information (RAI) Unit.
Wisniewski, M.F., Kim, S., Trick, W.E., Welbel, S.F., Weinstein, R.A., Chicago
Antimicrobial Resistance Project, 2007. Effect of education on hand
hygiene beliefs and practices: a 5-year program. Infect. Control Hosp.
Epidemiol. 28 (1), 88–91.
World Health Organisation, 2015. Infection Prevention and Control in
Health Care for Preparedness and Response to Outbreaks. Retrieved
from: http://www.who.int/csr/bioriskreduction/infection_control/
background/en/ (accessed 19.04.15).
Wright, N., 2013. First-time knowledge brokers in health care: the
experiences of nurses and allied health professionals of bridging
the research-practice gap. Evid. Policy 9 (4), 557–570.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed. Sage
Publications, London