Aim: The aim was to identify the factors that were perceived as most important as facilitators or barriers to the introduction and intended use of a new tool in the emergency department among nurses and a geriatric team.Background: A high incidence of functional decline after hospitalisation for acute medical illness has been shown in the oldest patients and those who are physically frail. In Denmark, more than 35% of older medical patients acutely admitted to the emergency department are readmitted within 90 days after discharge. A new screening tool for use in the emergency department aiming to identify patients at particularly high risk of functional decline and readmission was developed.Design: Qualitative study based on semistructured interviews with nurses and a geriatric team in the emergency department and semistructured single interviews with their managers.Methods: The Theoretical Domains Framework guided data collection and analysis. Content analysis was performed whereby new themes and themes already existing within each domain were described.Results: Six predominant domains were identified: (1) professional role and identity; (2) beliefs about consequences; (3) goals; (4) knowledge; (5) optimism and (6) environmental context and resources. The content analysis identified three themes, each containing two subthemes. The themes were professional role and identity, beliefs about consequences and preconditions for a successful implementation.Conclusions: Two different cultures were identified in the emergency department. These cultures applied to different professional roles and identity, different actions and sense making and identified how barriers and facilitators linked to the new screening tool were perceived.Relevance for clinical practice: The results show that different cultures exist in the same local context and influence the perception of barriers and facilitators differently. These cultures must be identified and addressed when implementation is planned.

Background: An emergency department is typically a place of high activity where practitioners care for unanticipated presentations, which yields a flow culture so that actions that secure available beds are prioritised by the practitioners.Objectives: How does the flow culture in an emergency department influence nurses’ use of a research‐based clinical guideline and a nutrition screening routine.Methods: Ethnographic fieldwork was carried out over three months. The first author followed nurses, medical secretaries and doctors in the emergency department. Data were also collected by means of semi‐structured interviews. An activity system analysis, as described in the Cultural Historical Activity Theory, was conducted to identify various contradictions that could exist between different parts of the activity system.Results: The main contradiction identified was that guidelines and screening routines provided a flow stop. Four associated contradictions were identified: insufficient time to implement guidelines; guilty conscience due to perceived nonadherence to evidence‐based practices; newcomers having different priorities; and conflicting views of what constituted being a professional.Conclusion: We found that research‐supported guidelines and screening routines were not used if they were perceived to stop the patient flow, suggesting that the practice was not fully evidence based.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to explore and discuss key challenges associated with having stakeholders take part in co-designing a health care intervention to increase mobility in older medical patients admitted to two medical departments at two hospitals in Denmark.Design/methodology/approach: The study used a qualitative design to investigate the challenges of co-designing an intervention in five workshops involving health professionals, patients and relatives. “Challenges” are understood as “situations of being faced with something that needs great mental or physical effort in order to be done successfully and therefore tests a person's ability” (Cambridge Dictionary). Thematic content analysis was conducted with a background in the analytical question: “What key challenges arise in the material in relation to the co-design process?”.Findings: Two key challenges were identified: engagement and facilitation. These consisted of five sub-themes: recruiting patients and relatives, involving physicians, adjusting to a new researcher role, utilizing contextual knowledge and handling ethical dilemmas.Research limitations/implications: The population of patients and relatives participating in the workshops was small, which likely affected the co-design process.Practical implications: Researchers who want to use co-design must be prepared for the extra time required and the need for skills concerning engagement, communication, facilitation, negotiation and resolution of conflict. Time is also required for ethical discussions and considerations concerning different types of knowledge creation.Originality/value: Engaging stakeholders in co-design processes is increasingly encouraged. This study documents the key challenges in such processes and reports practical implications.

Many older medical patients experience persistent functional limitations after hospitalization, such as dependency in activities of daily living, recurring fall incidents and increased mortality. Therefore, increased activity and mobilization during hospitalization are essential to prevent functional decline in older medical patients. No previous studies have explored how the social context influences how health professionals decide whether or not to mobilize patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore how social contextual circumstances affect the mobility of older medical patients in medical departments. An ethnographic field study was conducted in six medical departments in three public hospitals in the capital region of Copenhagen, Denmark. Participant observations were carried out from January to June 2017. The researchers were present for up to 14 days (range, 8–14 days) in the six departments. A total of 210 pages of field notes were produced. The participants were health professionals involved in the care of older medical patients: physiotherapists, registered nurses, nursing assistants and physicians. A content analysis was conducted. Five themes concerning mobility of patients emerged: (1) materialities; (2) professional roles; (3) encouraging moments; (4) patients and relatives; and (5) organization and management. Of these, professional roles seem to be the most important because it pervaded all themes. Different health professionals in the medical departments recognized, spoke and acted based on different cultural models. It was found that mobility of older medical patients is entangled in a complex network of social contextual circumstances. Mobility of older medical patients is based on health professionals’ different cultural models, which shape distinct professional identities and lead to contradictions and blurring of the priorities and responsibilities among the health professionals involved in mobilization. The consequence is that no profession “owns” the responsibility for mobilization, thus restricting mobilization of the patients during hospitalization.

Background: There is a long-standing debate in implementation research on whether adaptations to evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are desirable in health care. If an intervention is adapted and not delivered as conceived and planned, it is said to have low fidelity. The WALK-Cph project was developed based on the assumption that involving stakeholders in co-design processes would facilitate the fidelity of an intervention to increase the mobility of acutely admitted older medical patients and its implementation in two hospitals in Denmark. The purpose of this study is to describe and analyse adaptations and modifications that were made to the co-designed WALK-Cph intervention and its implementation. Methods: This study used a qualitative design. An ethnographic field study was performed using participant observations, workshops and semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed twice using the Framework Method. The first analysis was based on the frameworks from Stirman, Moore and Proctor. The second analysis, a retrospective modifications analysis, was based on the Adaptation-Impact Framework. Results: Many different types of adaptations and modifications were made to the WALK-Cph intervention and its implementation plan. Most of the modifications were made on the contents of the intervention. In total, 44 adaptations and modifications were made, of which 21 were planned (adaptations) and 23 were made haphazardly (modifications). Most of the content and context adaptations and modifications made on the intervention had a mixed result regarding enhanced fidelity. The retrospective modifications analysis showed that modifications were ongoing and both situationally and contextually shaped. Conclusions: Although an extensive co-design process was carried out to facilitate the fidelity of the WALK-Cph intervention, this study showed that many adaptations and modifications were still made to both the intervention and its implementation plan. It could indicate that the co-design process had a small effect or that adaptations and modifications are ongoing and both situationally and contextually shaped, which challenge the assumption and the desire to be able to plan and control changes.

Background: Selecting appropriate strategies to target barriers to implementing interventions represents a considerable challenge in implementation research and practice. The aim was to investigate what categories of implementation strategies were selected by health care practitioners and their managers in a co-design process and how they justified these strategies aimed at facilitating the implementation of the WALK-Cph intervention. Methods: The study used a qualitative research design to explore what implementation strategies were selected and the justifications for selecting these strategies. Workshops were used because this qualitative method is particularly well suited for studying co-design processes that involve substantial attention to social interaction and the context. Data were 1) analyzed deductively based on the Proctor et al. taxonomy of implementation strategies, 2) categorized in accordance with the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies by Powell et al., and 3) analyzed to examine the justification for the selected strategies by the Proctor et al. framework for justifications of implementation strategies. Results: Thirteen different types of implementation strategies were chosen across two hospitals. The deductive analysis showed that selection of implementation strategies was based on pragmatic and theoretical justifications. The contents of the two types of justifications were thematized into nine subthemes. Conclusion: This study contributes with knowledge about categories and justification of implementation strategies selected in a co-design process. In this study, implementation strategies were selected through pragmatic and theoretical justifications. This points to a challenge in balancing strategies based on practice-based and research-based knowledge and thereby selection of strategies with or without proven effectiveness.