Skip to main content

Table 4 Joint display capability

From: A mixed methods multiple case study to evaluate the implementation of a care pathway for colorectal cancer surgery using extended normalization process theory

Capability: Possibilities presented by the complex intervention (Workability & Integration)
  AR
(IR)
SrA ↑↓ LOS (ΔLOS) Qualitative data
Hospital 1 75%
(10%)
88% ↑17
↓5
(6.0d)
(−3.1d)
• CP implemented before project, project used to update and adapt
• CP integrated in electronic patient record
• No effect on workload
• Standardization, monitoring mentioned as standard ways of working
Hospital 2 65%
(22%)
60% ↑18
↓3
8.2d
(− 4.2)
• CP implemented during project
• CP not integrated in patient record, but integrated in work processes
• Initial increase in workload
• Delicate process to reach consensus
Hospital 8 47%
(− 13%)
71% ↑6
↓9
10.3d
(− 4.4)
• No CP implemented
• Local protocol not integrated in the patient record
• Using protocol decreases workload
• Perioperative care is unstructured, depending on individual preferences
Hospital 9 54%
(−3%)
72% ↑13
↓6
10.2d
(2.1d)
• CP partly implemented during project, not integrated in patient record
• No effect on workload
• Ambivalent perception of standardization: clarity versus ‘cook book medicine’ and loss of autonomy
Hospital 10 64%
(−5%)
64% ↑7
↓8
18.8d
(1.8)
• CP implemented during project
• CP integrated in (paper based) patient record
• Decrease in workload
• Standardization perceived as positive providing clarity and safety
  1. AR Adherence rate post-test, IR Improvement rate, SrA Self-rated adherence, ↑↓ number of interventions on which adherence went up or down, LOS length of stay post-test, ∆LOS change in mean LOS (days)