IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0255564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Normalisation process theory and the implementation of a new glaucoma clinical pathway in hospital eye services: Perspectives of doctors, nurses and optometrists

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Read
  • James Morgan
  • David Gillespie
  • Claire Nollett
  • Marjorie Weiss
  • Davina Allen
  • Pippa Anderson
  • Heather Waterman

Abstract

Background: Normalisation process theory reports the importance of contextual integration in successfully embedding novel interventions, with recent propositions detailing the role that ‘plasticity’ of intervention components and ‘elasticity’ of an intended setting contribute. We report on the introduction of a clinical pathway assessing patient non-responsiveness to treatment for glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of implementing the Cardiff Model of Glaucoma Care into hospital eye services, identifying any issues of acceptability for staff through the filter of normalisation process theory. Methods: A prospective observational study was undertaken in four hospital eye services. This incorporated detailed qualitative semi-structured interviews with staff (n = 8) to gather their perceptions on the intervention’s usefulness and practicality. In addition, observational field notes of patient and staff consultations (n = 88) were collected, as well as broader organisational observations from within the research sites (n = 52). Data collection and analysis was informed by the normalisation process theory framework. Results: Staff reported the pathway led to beneficial knowledge on managing patient treatment, but the model was sometimes perceived as overly prescriptive. This perception varied significantly based on the composition of clinics in relation to staff experience, staff availability and pre-existing clinical structures. The most commonly recounted barrier came in contextually integrating into sites where wider administrative systems were inflexible to intervention components. Conclusions: Flexibility will be the key determinant of whether the clinical pathway can progress to wider implementation. Addressing the complexity and variation associated with practice between clinics required a remodelling of the pathway to maintain its central benefits but enhance its plasticity. Our study therefore helps to confirm propositions developed in relation to normalisation process theory, contextual integration, intervention plasticity, and setting elasticity. This enables the transferability of findings to healthcare settings other than ophthalmology, where any novel intervention is implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Read & James Morgan & David Gillespie & Claire Nollett & Marjorie Weiss & Davina Allen & Pippa Anderson & Heather Waterman, 2021. "Normalisation process theory and the implementation of a new glaucoma clinical pathway in hospital eye services: Perspectives of doctors, nurses and optometrists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255564
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255564
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255564&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0255564?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255564. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.