Search

Abstract Background The Danish Health Authority recommended the implementation of new types of emergency departments. Organizational changes in the hospital sector challenged the role, identity, and autonomy of medical specialists. They tend to identify with their specialty, which can challenge successful implementation of change. However, investigations on specialty identity are rare in implementation science, and how the co-existence of different specialty identities influences the implementation of new emergency departments needs to be explored for the development of tailored implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to examine how medical specialty identity influences collaboration between physicians when implementing a new emergency department in Denmark. Methods Qualitative methods in the form of participants’ observations at 13 oilcloth sessions (a micro-simulation method) were conducted followed up by 53 individual semi-structured interviews with participants from the oilcloth sessions. Out of the 53 interviews, 26 were conducted with specialists. Data from their interviews are included in this study. Data were analysed deductively inspired by Social Identity Theory. Results The analysis yielded three overarching themes: [1] ongoing creation and re-creation of specialty identity through boundary drawing; [2] social categorization and power relations; and [3] the patient as a boundary object. Conclusions Specialty identity is an important determinant of collaboration among physicians when implementing a new emergency department. Specialty identity involves social categorization, which entails ongoing creation and re-creation of boundary drawing and exercising of power among the physicians. In some situations, the patient became a positive boundary object, increasing the possibility for a successful collaboration and supporting successful implementation, but direct expressions of boundaries and mistrust were evident. Both were manifested through a dominating power expressed through social categorization in the form of in- and out-groups and in an “us and them” discourse, which created distance and separation among physicians from different specialties. This distancing and separation became a barrier to the implementation of the new emergency department.

Abstract Background The aim of the study is two-fold. It explores how managers and key employees at the Emergency Department (ED) and specialist departments in a university hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark respond to the planned change to a new ED, and how they perceive the change involved in the implementation of the new ED. The study investigates what happens when health professionals are confronted with implementation of policy that changes their organization and everyday work lives. Few studies provide in-depth investigations of health professionals’ reactions to the implementation of new EDs, and particularly how they influence the implementation of a nationwide organizational change framed within a political strategy. Methods The study used semi-structured individual interviews with 51 health professionals involved in implementation activities related to an organizational change of establishing a new ED with new patient pathways for acutely ill patients. The data was deductively analyzed using Leon Coetsee’s theoretical framework of change responses, but the analysis also allowed for a more inductive reading of the material. Results Fourteen types of responses to establishing a new ED were identified and mapped onto six of the seven overall change responses in Coetsee’s framework. The participants perceived the change as particularly three changes. Firstly, they wished to create the best possible acute patient pathway in relation to their specialty. Whether the planned new ED would redeem this was disputed. Secondly, participants perceived the change as relocation to a new building, which both posed potentials and worries. Thirdly, both hopeful and frustrated statements were given about the newly established medical specialty of emergency medicine (EM), which was connected to the success of the new ED. Conclusions The study showcases how implementation processes within health care are not straightforward and that it is not only the content of the implementation that determines the success of the implementation and its outcomes but also how these are perceived by managers and employees responsible for the process and their context. In this way, managers must recognize that it cannot be pre-determined how implementation will proceed, which necessitates fluid implementation plans and demands implementation managements skills.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background While few countries and healthcare systems are on track to meet the World Health Organization’s hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination goals, the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a leader in these efforts. We aimed to determine which implementation strategies were associated with successful national viral elimination implementation within the VHA. Methods We conducted a five-year, longitudinal cohort study of the VHA Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative between October 2015 and September 2019. Participants from 130 VHA medical centers treating HCV were sent annual electronic surveys about their use of 73 implementation strategies, organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Descriptive and nonparametric analyses assessed strategy use over time, strategy attribution to the HIT, and strategy associations with site HCV treatment volume and rate of adoption, following the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations. Results Between 58 and 109 medical centers provided responses in each year, including 127 (98%) responding at least once, and 54 (42%) responding in all four implementation years. A median of 13–27 strategies were endorsed per year, and 8–36 individual strategies were significantly associated with treatment volume per year. Data warehousing, tailoring, and patient-facing strategies were most commonly endorsed. One strategy—“identify early adopters to learn from their experiences”—was significantly associated with HCV treatment volume in each year. Peak implementation year was associated with revising professional roles, providing local technical assistance, using data warehousing (i.e., dashboard population management), and identifying and preparing champions. Many of the strategies were driven by a national learning collaborative, which was instrumental in successful HCV elimination. Conclusions VHA’s tremendous success in rapidly treating nearly all Veterans with HCV can provide a roadmap for other HCV elimination initiatives.

Abstract Background One of the key conceptual challenges in advancing our understanding of how to more effectively sustain innovations in health care is the lack of clarity and agreement on what sustainability actually means. Several reviews have helped synthesize and clarify how researchers conceptualize and operationalize sustainability. In this study, we sought to identify how individuals who implement and/or sustain evidence-informed innovations in health care define sustainability. Methods We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with implementation leaders and relevant staff involved in the implementation of evidence-based innovations relevant to cancer survivorship care (n = 27). An inductive approach, using constant comparative analysis, was used for analysis of interview transcripts and field notes. Results Participants described sustainability as an ongoing and dynamic process that incorporates three key concepts and four important conditions. The key concepts were: (1) continued capacity to deliver the innovation, (2) continued delivery of the innovation, and (3) continued receipt of benefits. The key conditions related to (2) and (3), and included: (2a) innovations must continue in the absence of the champion or person/team who introduced it and (3a) adaptation is critical to ensuring relevancy and fit, and thus to delivering the intended benefits. Conclusions Participants provided a nuanced view of sustainability, with both continued delivery and continued benefits only relevant under certain conditions. The findings reveal the interconnected elements of what sustainability means in practice, providing a unique and important perspective to the academic literature.

Abstract Context Implementation science measures are rarely used by stakeholders to inform and enhance clinical program change. Little is known about what makes implementation measures pragmatic (i.e., practical) for use in community settings; thus, the present study’s objective was to generate a clinical stakeholder-driven operationalization of a pragmatic measures construct. Evidence acquisition The pragmatic measures construct was defined using: 1) a systematic literature review to identify dimensions of the construct using PsycINFO and PubMed databases, and 2) interviews with an international stakeholder panel (N = 7) who were asked about their perspectives of pragmatic measures. Evidence synthesis Combined results from the systematic literature review and stakeholder interviews revealed a final list of 47 short statements (e.g., feasible, low cost, brief) describing pragmatic measures, which will allow for the development of a rigorous, stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the pragmatic measures construct. Conclusions Results revealed significant overlap between terms related to the pragmatic construct in the existing literature and stakeholder interviews. However, a number of terms were unique to each methodology. This underscores the importance of understanding stakeholder perspectives of criteria measuring the pragmatic construct. These results will be used to inform future phases of the project where stakeholders will determine the relative importance and clarity of each dimension of the pragmatic construct, as well as their priorities for the pragmatic dimensions. Taken together, these results will be incorporated into a pragmatic rating system for existing implementation science measures to support implementation science and practice.