Struggling with practices

BackgroundThe use of clinical quality registries as means for data driven improvement in healthcare seem promising. However, their use has been shown to be challenged by a number of aspects, and we suggest some may be related to poor implementation. There is a paucity of literature regarding barriers and facilitators for registry implementation, in particular aspects related to data collection and entry. We aimed to illuminate this by exploring how staff perceive the implementation process related to the registries within the field of cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark.MethodsA qualitative, interview-based study with staff involved in collecting and/or entering data into the two case registries (England N=12, Denmark N=12). Interviews were analysed using content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide interviews and the interpretation of results.ResultsThe analysis identified both similarities and differences within and between the studied registries, and resulted in clarification of staffs experiences in an overarching theme: Struggling with practices and five categories; the data entry process, registry quality, resources and management support, quality improvement and the wider healthcare context. Overall, implementation received little focused attention. There was a lack of active support from management, and staff may experience a struggle of fitting use of a registry into a busy and complex everyday practice.Conclusion The study highlights factors that may be important to consider when planning and implementing a new clinical quality registry within the field of cardiac rehabilitation, and is possibly transferrable to other fields. The results may thus be useful for policy makers, administrators and managers within the field and beyond. Targeting barriers and utilizing knowledge of facilitating factors is vital in order to improve the process of registry implementation, hence helping to achieve the intended improvement of care processes and outcomes.Funding Agencies|Data and Development Support, Region Zealand; Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, University of Southern Denmark; Odense University Hospital, Southern Region of Denmark; Region Zealand Health Scientific Research Foundation; Department of Medicine, Holbaek University Hospital