Search

Abstract Background Although the importance of clinical ethics in contemporary clinical environments is established, development of formal clinical ethics services in the Australia health system has, to date, been ad hoc. This study was designed to systematically follow and reflect upon the first 18 months of activity by a newly established service, to examine key barriers and facilitators to establishing a new service in an Australian hospital setting. Methods: how the study was performed and statistical tests used A qualitative case study approach was utilised. The study gathered and analysed data using observations of service committee meetings, document analysis of agendas and minutes, and semi-structured interviews with committee members to generate semantic themes. By interpreting the thematic findings in reference to national capacity building resources, this study also aimed to provide practice-based reflections for other health agencies. Results: the main findings An overarching theme identified in the data was a strong commitment to supporting clinicians facing difficult patient care decisions and navigating difficult discussions with patients and families. Another key theme was the role of the new clinical ethics support service in providing clinicians with a pathway to raise system-wide issues with the organisation Executive. While there was strong clinical engagement, consumer and community participation remained a challenge, as did unresolved governance issues and a need for clearer policy relationship between the service and the organisation. Conclusions: brief summary and potential implications Considering these themes in relation to the national capacity building resources, the study identifies three areas likely to require ongoing development and negotiation. These are: the role of the clinical ethics support service as a link between the workforce and the Executive; the incorporation of consumers and patients; and ethical reasoning. To improve the effectiveness of the service, it is necessary to increase clarity on the service’s role at the governance and policy level, as well as develop strategies for engaging consumers, patients and families. Finally, the capacity of the service to reflect on complex cases may be enhanced through explicit discussions of various different ethical frameworks and ways of deliberating.

Abstract Background Implementing and sustaining innovations in clinical practice, such as evidence-based practices, programmes, and policies, is frequently described as challenging. Facilitation as a strategy for supporting implementation requires a facilitator, i.e. an individual with a designated role to support the implementation process. A growing number of studies report that facilitation can help tackle the challenges in implementation efforts. To optimise the potential contribution of facilitation as a strategy to improve the implementation of new practices, there is a need to enhance understanding about what training and support is required for individuals in the facilitator role. The objective of this scoping review is to map how facilitators have been trained for, and supported in, the facilitator role in implementation studies in health and community care. Specifically, the review aims to examine what is reported on training and support of facilitators in terms of learning outcomes, content, dose, mode of delivery, learning activities, and qualifications of the trainers and how the facilitators perceive training and support. Methods This scoping review will follow the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review checklist. We will include articles in which (a) facilitation is deployed as an implementation strategy, with identified facilitator roles targeting staff and managers, to support the implementation of specified innovations in health or community care, and (b) training and/or support of facilitators is reported. We will exclude articles where facilitation is directed to education or training in specific clinical procedures or if facilitation supports the implementation of general quality improvement systems. All types of peer-reviewed studies and study protocols published in English will be included. A systematic search will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (embase.com), Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL (Ebsco). Discussion The proposed scoping review will provide a systematic mapping of the literature on the training and support of implementation facilitators and contribute useful knowledge within the field of implementation science to inform future facilitation initiatives. Systematic review registration Registered at Open Science Framework (registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M6NPQ ).

Abstract Background Facilitation is a promising implementation intervention, which requires theory-informed evaluation. This paper presents an exemplar of a multi-country realist process evaluation that was embedded in the first international randomised controlled trial evaluating two types of facilitation for implementing urinary continence care recommendations. We aimed to uncover what worked (and did not work), for whom, how, why and in what circumstances during the process of implementing the facilitation interventions in practice. Methods This realist process evaluation included theory formulation, theory testing and refining. Data were collected in 24 care home sites across four European countries. Data were collected over four time points using multiple qualitative methods: observation (372 h), interviews with staff (n = 357), residents (n = 152), next of kin (n = 109) and other stakeholders (n = 128), supplemented by facilitator activity logs. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process focused on realist theory refinement and testing. Results The content and approach of the two facilitation programmes prompted variable opportunities to align and realign support with the needs and expectations of facilitators and homes. This influenced their level of confidence in fulfilling the facilitator role and ability to deliver the intervention as planned. The success of intervention implementation was largely dependent on whether sites prioritised their involvement in both the study and the facilitation programme. In contexts where the study was prioritised (including release of resources) and where managers and staff support was sustained, this prompted collective engagement (as an attitude and action). Internal facilitators’ (IF) personal characteristics and abilities, including personal and formal authority, in combination with a supportive environment prompted by managers triggered the potential for learning over time. Learning over time resulted in a sense of confidence and personal growth, and enactment of the facilitation role, which resulted in practice changes. Conclusion The scale and multi-country nature of this study provided a novel context to conduct one of the few trial embedded realist-informed process evaluations. In addition to providing an explanatory account of implementation processes, a conceptual platform for future facilitation research is presented. Finally, a realist-informed process evaluation framework is outlined, which could inform future research of this nature. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN11598502.

Abstract Background A multitude of theories, models and frameworks relating to implementing evidence-based practice in health care exist, which can be overwhelming for clinicians and clinical researchers new to the field of implementation science. Clinicians often bear responsibility for implementation, but may be unfamiliar with theoretical approaches designed to inform or understand implementation. Main text In this article, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians and health service researchers present a pragmatic guide to help clinicians and clinical researchers understand what implementation theories, models and frameworks are; how a theoretical approach to implementation might be used; and some prompts to consider when selecting a theoretical approach for an implementation project. Ten commonly used and highly cited theoretical approaches are presented, none of which have been utilised to their full potential in the literature to date. Specifically, theoretical approaches tend to be applied retrospectively to evaluate or interpret findings from a completed implementation project, rather than being used to plan and design theory-informed implementation strategies which would intuitively have a greater likelihood of success. We emphasise that there is no right or wrong way of selecting a theoretical approach, but encourage clinicians to carefully consider the project’s purpose, scope and available data and resources to allow them to select an approach that is most likely to “value-add” to the implementation project. Conclusion By assisting clinicians and clinical researchers to become confident in selecting and applying theoretical approaches to implementation, we anticipate an increase in theory-informed implementation projects. This then will contribute to more nuanced advice on how to address evidence-practice gaps and ultimately to contribute to better health outcomes.

Abstract Background The ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence’ study found no significant differences between sites that received two types of facilitation support and those that did not on the primary outcome of documented compliance with guideline recommendations. Process evaluation highlighted factors that influenced local, internal facilitators’ ability to enact the roles as envisaged. In this paper, the external facilitators responsible for designing and delivering the two types of facilitation intervention analyse why the interventions proved difficult to implement as expected, including the challenge of balancing fidelity and adaptation. Methods Qualitative data sources included notes from monthly internal-external facilitator teleconference meetings, from closing events for the two facilitation interventions and summary data analyses from repeated interviews with 16 internal facilitators. Deductive and inductive data analysis was led by an independent researcher to evaluate how facilitation in practice compared to the logic pathways designed to guide fidelity in the delivery of the interventions. Results The planned facilitation interventions did not work as predicted. Difficulties were encountered in each of the five elements of the logic pathway: recruitment and selection of appropriate internal facilitators, preparation for the role, ability to apply facilitation knowledge and skills at a local level, support and mentorship from external facilitators via monthly teleconferences, working collaboratively and enabling colleagues to implement guideline recommendations. Moreover, problems were cumulative and created tensions for the external facilitators in terms of balancing the logic pathway with a more real-world, flexible and iterative approach to facilitation. Conclusion Evaluating an intervention that is fluid and dynamic within the methodology of a randomised controlled trial is complex and challenging. At a practical level, relational aspects of facilitation are critically important. It is essential to recruit and retain individuals with the appropriate set of skills and characteristics, explicit support from managerial leaders and accessible mentorship from more experienced facilitators. At a methodological level, there is a need for attention to the balance between fidelity and adaptation of interventions. For future studies, we suggest a theoretical approach to fidelity, with a focus on mechanisms, informed by prospective use of process evaluation data and more detailed investigation of the context-facilitation dynamic.

Abstract Background Health care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. This study used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework as its theoretical underpinning to test whether two different approaches to facilitating implementation could affect the use of research evidence in practice. Methods A pragmatic clustered randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation was used. The study took place in four European countries across 24 long-term nursing care sites, for people aged 60 years or more with documented urinary incontinence. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination, or one of two different types of facilitation. The primary outcome was the documented percentage compliance with the continence recommendations, assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the intervention. Data were analysed using STATA15, multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models were fitted to scores for compliance with the continence recommendations, adjusting for clustering. Results Quantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (documented compliance with continence recommendations) between study arms and all study arms improved over time. Conclusions This was the first cross European randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation that sought to test different methods of facilitation. There were no statistically significant differences in compliance with continence recommendations between the groups. It was not possible to identify whether different types and “doses” of facilitation were influential within very diverse contextual conditions. The process evaluation (Rycroft-Malone et al., Implementation Science. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0) revealed the models of facilitation used were limited in their ability to overcome the influence of contextual factors. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502. Date 4/2/10. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 223646.

Abstract Background Accelerating the implementation of new technology in healthcare is typically complex and multi-faceted. One strategy is to charge a national agency with the responsibility for facilitating implementation. This study examines the role of such an agency in the English National Health Service. In particular, it compares two different facilitation strategies employed by the agency to support the implementation of insulin pump therapy. Methods The research involved an empirical case study of four healthcare organisations receiving different levels of facilitation from the national agency: two received active hands-on facilitation; one was the intended recipient of a more passive, web-based facilitation strategy; the other implemented the technology without any external facilitation. The primary method of data collection was semi-structured qualitative interviews with key individuals involved in implementation. The integrated-PARIHS framework was applied as a conceptual lens to analyse the data. Results The two sites that received active facilitation from an Implementation Manager in the national agency made positive progress in implementing the technology. In both sites there was a high level of initial receptiveness to implementation. This was similar to a site that had successfully introduced insulin pump therapy without facilitation support from the national agency. By contrast, a site that did not have direct contact with the national agency made little progress with implementation, despite the availability of a web-based implementation resource. Clinicians expressed differences of opinion around the value and effectiveness of the technology and contextual barriers related to funding for implementation persisted. The national agency’s intended roll out strategy using passive web-based facilitation appeared to have little impact. Conclusions When favourable conditions exist, in terms of agreement around the value of the technology, clinician receptiveness and motivation to change, active facilitation via an external agency can help to structure the implementation process and address contextual barriers. Passive facilitation using web-based implementation resources appears less effective. Moving from initial implementation to wider scale-up presents challenges and is an issue that warrants further attention.

Integrated care has been recognised as a key initiative to resolve the issues surrounding care for older people living with multi-morbidity. Multiple strategies and policies have been implemented to increase coordination of care globally however, evidence of effectiveness remains mixed. The reasons for this are complex and multifactorial, yet many strategies deal with parts of the problem rather than taking a whole systems view with the older person clearly at the centre. This approach of fixing parts of the system may be akin to shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic, rather than dealing with the fundamental reasons why the ship is sinking. Attempts to make the ship more watertight need to be firmly centred on the older person, pay close attention to implementation and embrace approaches that promote collaborative working between all the stakeholders involved.

Many representations of the movement of healthcare knowledge through society exist, and multiple models for the translation of evidence into policy and practice have been articulated. Most are linear or cyclical and very few come close to reflecting the dense and intricate relationships, systems and politics of organizations and the processes required to enact sustainable improvements. We illustrate how using complexity and network concepts can better inform knowledge translation (KT) and argue that changing the way we think and talk about KT could enhance the creation and movement of knowledge throughout those systems needing to develop and utilise it. From our theoretical refinement, we propose that KT is a complex network composed of five interdependent sub-networks, or clusters, of key processes (problem identification [PI], knowledge creation [KC], knowledge synthesis [KS], implementation [I], and evaluation [E]) that interact dynamically in different ways at different times across one or more sectors (community; health; government; education; research for example). We call this the KT Complexity Network, defined as a network that optimises the effective, appropriate and timely creation and movement of knowledge to those who need it in order to improve what they do. Activation within and throughout any one of these processes and systems depends upon the agents promoting the change, successfully working across and between multiple systems and clusters. The case is presented for moving to a way of thinking about KT using complexity and network concepts. This extends the thinking that is developing around integrated KT approaches. There are a number of policy and practice implications that need to be considered in light of this shift in thinking.

Abstract Background Vital signs are the primary indicator of physiological status and for determining the need for urgent clinical treatment. Yet, if physiological signs of deterioration are missed, misinterpreted or mismanaged, then critical illness, unplanned intensive care admissions, cardiac arrest and death may ensue. Although evidence demonstrates the benefit of early recognition and management of deteriorating patients, failure to escalate care and manage deteriorating patients remains a relatively frequent occurrence in hospitals. Methods/design A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial design will be used to measure clinical effectiveness and cost of a facilitation intervention to improve nurses’ vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for patients with abnormal vital signs. A cost consequence analysis will evaluate the intervention cost and effectiveness, and a process evaluation will determine how the implementation of the intervention contributes to outcomes. We will compare clinical outcomes and costs from standard implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to facilitated implementation of CPGs. The primary outcome will be adherence to the CPGs by nurses, as measured by escalation of care as per organisational policy. The study will be conducted in four Australian major metropolitan teaching hospitals. In each hospital, eight to ten wards will be randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. Control wards will receive standard implementation of CPGs, while intervention wards will receive standard CPG implementation plus facilitation, using facilitation methods and processes tailored to the ward context. The intervention will be administered to all nursing staff at the ward level for 6 months. At each hospital, two types of facilitators will be provided: a hospital-level facilitator as the lead; and two ward-level facilitators for each ward. Discussion This study uses an innovative, networked approach to facilitation to enable uptake of CPGs. Findings will inform the intervention utility and knowledge translation measurement approaches. If successful, the study methodology and intervention has potential for translation to other health care standards. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12616000544471p

The challenge of mobilizing knowledge to improve patient care, population health and ensure effective use of resources is an enduring one in healthcare systems across the world. This commentary reflects on an earlier paper by Ferlie and colleagues that proposes the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm as a useful theoretical lens through which to study knowledge mobilization in healthcare. Specifically, the commentary considers 3 areas that need to be addressed in relation to the proposed application of RBV: the definition of competitive advantage in healthcare; the contribution of macro level theory to understanding knowledge mobilization in healthcare; and the need to embrace and align multiple theories at the micro, meso, and macro levels of implementation.

How best to achieve the translation of research evidence into routine policy and practice remains an enduring challenge in health systems across the world. The complexities associated with changing behaviour at an individual, team, organizational and system level have led many academics to conclude that tailored, multifaceted strategies provide the most effective approach to knowledge translation. However, a recent overview of systematic reviews questions this position and sheds doubt as to whether multi-faceted strategies are any better than single ones. In this paper, we argue that this either-or distinction is too simplistic and fails to recognize the complexity that is inherent in knowledge translation. Drawing on organizational theory relating to boundaries and boundary management, we illustrate the need for translational strategies that take account of the type of knowledge to be implemented, the context of implementation and the people and processes involved.

We are increasingly aware of the need to be as effective and efficient as possible when designing and applying strategies to implement evidenceinformed changes into policy and practice, particularly within our resource constrained health systems. Implementation efforts consume a range of resources, including time, people, educational input, and communication systems to name just a few

Upon publication of the original article [1], Gregory Maniatopoulos’ name was incorrectly given as ‘Greg Maniatopoulous’. This has now been corrected in the original article.

Background: The establishment of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) was the culmination of a number of policy initiatives to bridge the gap between evidence and practice. CLAHRCs were created and funded to facilitate development of partnerships and connect the worlds of academia and practice in an effort to improve patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research. Objectives: Our starting point was to test the theory that bringing higher education institutions and health-care organisations closer together catalyses knowledge mobilisation. The overall purpose was to develop explanatory theory regarding implementation through CLAHRCs and answer the question ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. The study objectives focused on identifying and tracking implementation mechanisms and processes over time; determining what influences whether or not and how research is used in CLAHRCs; investigating the role played by boundary objects in the success or failure of implementation; and determining whether or not and how CLAHRCs develop and sustain interactions and communities of practice. Methods: This study was a longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative case studies, incorporating stakeholder engagement and formative feedback. Three CLAHRCs were studied in depth over four rounds of data collection through a process of hypothesis generation, refining, testing and programme theory specification. Data collection included interviews, observation, documents, feedback sessions and an interpretive forum. Findings: Knowledge mobilisation in CLAHRCs was a function of a number of interconnected issues that provided more or less conducive conditions for collective action. The potential of CLAHRCs to close the metaphorical ‘know–do’ gap was dependent on historical regional relationships, their approach to engaging different communities, their architectures, what priorities were set and how, and providing additional resources for implementation, including investment in roles and activities to bridge and broker boundaries. Additionally, we observed a balance towards conducting research rather than implementing it. Key mechanisms of interpretations of collaborative action, opportunities for connectivity, facilitation, motivation, review and reflection, and unlocking barriers/releasing potential were important to the processes and outcomes of CLAHRCs. These mechanisms operated in different contexts including stakeholders’ positioning, or ‘where they were coming from’, governance arrangements, availability of resources, competing drivers, receptiveness to learning and evaluation, and alignment of structures, positions and resources. Preceding conditions influenced the course and journey of the CLAHRCs in a path-dependent way. We observed them evolving over time and their development led to the accumulation of different types of impacts, from those that were conceptual to, later in their life cycle, those that were more direct. Conclusions: Most studies of implementation focus on researching one-off projects, so a strength of this study was in researching a systems approach to knowledge mobilisation over time. Although CLAHRC-like approaches show promise, realising their full potential will require a longer and more sustained focus on relationship building, resource allocation and, in some cases, culture change. This reinforces the point that research implementation within a CLAHRC model is a long-term investment and one that is set within a life cycle of organisational collaboration. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Proven clinical effectiveness and patient safety are insufficient to ensure adoption and implementation of new clinical technologies. Despite current government policy, clinical technologies are not yet demand-led through commissioning. Hence, adoption and implementation relies on providers. Introducing new technologies initially raises providers’ costs as they necessitate training, alter patient pathways and change patient management, and may lead to reduced patient throughput in the short term. The current funding regime for providers – Payment by Results (PbR) – rewards activity. It is not surprising, therefore, that providers often see new technologies as risky. Objectives: This study investigated the organisational and policy context for the adoption and implementation of clinical technologies, because this context may present barriers that slow – or even prevent – uptake. The research focused on three clinical technologies: insulin pump therapy (IPT); breast lymph node assay (BLNA), a diagnostic tool for metastases; and ultrawide field retinal imaging (UFRI). The implementation of these technologies had been supported by NHS Technology Adoption Centre (NTAC). Methods: The research method was qualitative case studies of these three clinical technologies. The primary data collection technique was semistructured interviews of NTAC staff, clinicians, managers and commissioners, supplemented by documentary evidence, participant and non-participant observation of meetings and videos. For IPT, we also conducted a survey of clinicians and analysed anonymised e-mails from patients. Results: NHS providers did not perceive any central ‘push’ from the Department of Health or the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to adopt, implement or diffuse new clinical technologies. There is a ‘bottom-up’ adoption culture: any trust could choose to adopt any, all or none of the three clinical technologies we investigated. This is undesirable, as clinically efficacious technologies should be equally available to all patients. Where there is NICE guidance, this acted as an enabler for adoption, but some trusts still did not offer IPT despite this. We found that PbR could be a major obstacle to adoption. Our evidence also indicates that, contrary to its intention, commissioning practice is more of a barrier than an enabler of innovation. Protracted negotiations over funding between providers and commissioners delayed implementation of BLNA and IPT. Organisational power and politics between hospitals and community-based services was a significant barrier for adoption of UFRI. Clinicians outside of specialist ophthalmology centres did not understand the clinical utility of UFRI (e.g. its diagnostic potential or how and when to use it). Conclusions: NTAC was successful in assisting trusts over the generic organisational barriers outlined above, particularly with regard to taking responsibility for the logistics of implementation, negotiating new patient pathways and ways of working with relevant stakeholders, and using their skills in project management and stakeholder engagement to drive processes forward. Where there were major obstacles, however, the NTAC process stalled. ‘Bottom-up’ adoption at individual trusts needs to be linked into wider national processes that offer vision, some central direction, further assessment and evaluation, and the infrastructure to ensure diffusion to sites that have the capabilities and capacities to best utilise the clinical technology. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Health systems across the world are concerned with the quality and safety of patient care. This includes investing in research and development to progress advances in the treatment and management of individuals and healthcare organisations. The concept of evidence- based healthcare has gained increasing currency over the last two decades; yet questions persist about the time it takes for new research evidence to find its way into day to day healthcare decision-making. This paper explores the reasons for this apparent gap between research and healthcare practice, management and policy-making. In particular, the paper argues that different meanings attached to the word ‘evidence’ fundamentally influence the way in which the research-practice gap is conceptualised and subsequent strategies that are implemented to increase the uptake of research.