An evaluation of implementation climate in inpatient maternity care: a cross-sectional survey study

Abstract

Objective

Researchers in obstetrics and gynecology are continuously generating new evidence to inform clinical care delivery. Yet, much of this newly emerging evidence fails to be rapidly and effectively integrated into routine clinical practice. Implementation climate refers to clinicians’ perceptions of to what degree organizations support and reward use of an evidence-based practice (EBP) and is an important construct in the science of implementation in healthcare. Little is known about implementation climate for EBPs in maternity care. Thus, we aimed to (a) determine the reliability of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) for use in inpatient maternity care, (b) describe implementation climate in inpatient maternity care overall, and (c) compare individual perceptions of implementation climate between physician and nursing clinicians on these units.

Study design

We performed a cross-sectional survey of clinicians in inpatient maternity units across 2 urban, academic hospitals in the northeastern United States in 2020. Clinicians completed the 18-question validated ICS [scored 0–4]. Scale reliability by role was evaluated using Cronbach’s α. Subscale and total scores were described overall and compared by physician versus nursing role using independent t-tests, as well as linear regression to control for confounders.

Results

111 clinicians completed the survey (physicians = 65; nursing = 46). Physicians were less likely to identify as female (75.4% vs. 100.0%, p < .001), but were of similar age and years of experience as nursing clinicians. Reliability of the ICS was excellent, with Cronbach’s α of 0.91 and 0.86 among physicians and nursing clinicians, respectively. Scores were notably low for implementation climate in maternity care overall and for all subscales. ICS total scores were also higher among physicians as compared to nurses (2.18(±0.56) vs. 1.92(±0.50), p = .02), which remained significant in multivariable modeling (p = .02). Unadjusted subscale scores were higher among physicians in Recognition for EBP (2.68(±0.89) vs. 2.30(±0.86), p = .03) and Selection for EBP (2.24(±0.93) vs. 1.62(±1.04), p = .002). After adjustment for potential confounders, subscale scores for Focus on EBP (p = .04) and Selection for EBP (p = .002) were all higher among physicians.

Conclusions

This study supports the ICS as a reliable scale for measuring implementation climate in the inpatient maternity care setting. Notably lower implementation climate scores across subscales and roles compared to other settings may underlie the vast evidence to practice gap in obstetrics. In order to successfully implement practices that reduce maternal morbidity, we may need to focus on building educational support and rewarding EBP utilization on labor and delivery units, with an emphasis on nursing clinicians.

Keywords:

• Evidence-based practices
• implementation climate
• implementation climate scale
• maternity care

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Nathaniel Williams for his contributions to the statistical analysis.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Pennsylvania and all participants provided written consent before participation in this study.

Consent for publication

NA.

Authors’ contributions

RH, LL, and RB conceived and designed this work. RH analyzed the data under the guidance of LL, EQ, and RB. RH drafted the work, and it was substantially revised by LL, EQ, and RB. All authors approved of the final version of this work and ensure its accuracy and integrity.

Disclosure statement

Dr. Beidas is principal at Implementation Science & Practice, LLC. She receives royalties from Oxford University Press, consulting fees from United Behavioral Health and OptumLabs, and serves on the advisory boards for Optum Behavioral Health, AIM Youth Mental Health Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded in part by a K23 mentored career development award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development [K23 HD102523].