Table 4 A summary of results of themes from interviews with; practice staff, including GPs and practice nurses mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

-CRISP was a valuable intervention and prompted them to discuss bowel cancer screening

-As CRISP is a website, the nurses had trouble using the desktop shortcuts after the tool was updated

-It was suggested that CRISP should be embedded within the electronic medical records

- CRISP took time to complete and auto-populating fields from the electronic medical records would save time

- The general practice where CRISP was implemented changed a lot over the duration of the study

- During flu season it was hard for practice nurses to find time to use CRISP

-Nurses identified opportunities to use CRISP i.e. during cervical screening appointments

-The clinic’s billing system changed, and some patients had to pay out of pocket

- CRISP encouraged participation in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program

- As there are long waiting times for colonoscopic screening in the public system, CRISP decreased the need for unnecessary ones

- CRISP increased risk appropriate screening, so more the right people used the right screening methods

- The nurses were unaware of the risk factors for colorectal cancer that were presented in CRISP, so ongoing training was essential for its appropriate use

- GPs were pressed for time and felt overwhelmed by having to discuss the CRISP recommendations with their patients who often presented with multiple health concerns

- The clinic is a teaching clinic and they were incredibly flexible and open to change which may not be the same for other clinics

- The nurses were comfortable using the Fidelity Checklist, presented in Table 2, with their patients during consultations

- CRISP was well received by the practice and patients during consultations