Search

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).

Background On admission to Woodlands Hospice’s inpatient ward, every patient has an initial assessment carried out by a nurse. A section of this assessment includes a psychosocial and spiritual component but this component was often not fully completed, sometimes resulting in delays to accessing appropriate personalised support for the patient. Our Pastoral Support Worker met with nursing colleagues and members of the Quality and Improvement team to discuss potential ideas for improving the assessment. They agreed we needed to look again at the process for assessing patients’ spiritual needs and the supporting documentation. Aims To support patients to identify what gives their lives meaning and purpose. To enhance each patient’s experience of the admission process. Further develop holistic therapeutic intervention, individualised to each patient’s needs. Support the improvement of mental health and wellbeing for every patient. Methods Conducted a baseline of the original ‘Psychosocial and Spiritual Assessment’. Spoke with patients and staff about how the assessment could be improved. Piloted a draft, patient-centred, inclusive spirituality assessment. Developed a spirituality care plan that reflected the needs of the patient, identified during the nurse admission assessment. Developed an e-learning module to support training for relevant staff. Re-audited the use of the revised spirituality assessment. Results Following the results of the baseline audit which highlighted areas for improvement, we developed the ‘HOPE’ assessment model and accompanying care plan. The HOPE approach allows for an open-ended exploration of an individual’s spiritual resources including their belief in organised religion, personal spirituality and beliefs, and their effects and subsequent evaluation. Conclusion Supporting each patient‘s individual spirituality practice can be beneficial to their overall experience. The HOPE approach is particularly useful and important to understanding a patient‘s spiritual needs, enhancing their experience and can support the development of a personalised care plan.

Background An intervention ‘Better Oral Health in Home Care’ was introduced (2012–2014) to improve the oral health of older people receiving community aged care services. Implementation of the intervention was theoretically framed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Process outcomes demonstrated significant improvements in older people’s oral health. Objective To evaluate the extent to which the intervention has been embedded and sustained into routine community aged care practice 3 years after the initial implementation project. Design A Realist Evaluation applying Normalisation Process Theory within a single case study setting. Setting Community aged care (home care) provider in South Australia, Australia. Participants Purposeful sampling was undertaken. Twelve staff members were recruited from corporate, management and direct care positions. Two consumers representing high and low care recipients also participated. Methods Qualitative methods were applied in two subcases, reflecting different contextual settings. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analysed deductively by applying the Normalisation Process Theory core constructs (with the recommended phases of the Realist Evaluation cycle). Retrospective and prospective analytic methods investigated how the intervention has been operationalised by comparing two timeframes: Time 1 (Implementation June 2012–December 2014) and Time 2 (Post-implementation July 2017–July 2018). Results At Time 1, the initial program theory proposed that multi-level facilitation contributed to a favourable context that triggered positive mechanisms supportive of building organisational and workforce oral healthcare capacity. At Time 2, an alternative program theory of how the intervention has unfolded in practice described a changed context following the withdrawal of the project facilitation processes with the triggering of alternative mechanisms that have made it difficult for staff to embed sustainable practice. Conclusion Findings concur with the literature that successful implementation outcomes do not necessarily guarantee sustainability. The study has provided a deeper explanation of how contextual characteristics have contributed to the conceptualisation of oral healthcare as a low priority, basic work-ready personal care task and how this, in turn, hindered the embedding of sustainable oral healthcare into routine community aged care practice. This understanding can be used to better inform the development of strategies, such as multi-level facilitation, needed to navigate contextual barriers so that sustainable practice can be achieved.

Background: The Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT) intervention is an evidence-based, person-centred approach to carer assessment and support within palliative care. As such, it requires a change in practice from a practitioner- to a carer-led assessment and support process. A paucity of studies have investigated factors affecting implementation of evidence based interventions within palliative care. Objectives: To examine differences between high and low adopters of the CSNAT intervention in terms of practitioner attitudes to the intervention and organisational context.Methods: Phase IV study of implementation of the CSNAT intervention at scale in 36 UK palliative care services over six months. Survey at baseline and six months of practitioners at implementation sites, informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) Framework. Survey tools: (i) questionnaire to assess attitudes to the CSNAT intervention; (ii) Alberta Context Tool (ACT) to assess organisational context. Monthly data on intervention use enabled service classification as ‘high’ or ‘low’ adopters. Results: 157/462 surveys returned at baseline; 69/462 at six months. Compared with ‘low’ adoption services, ‘high’ adopters were more likely to be hospice at home and day services; have a higher ratio of internal facilitators to total staff numbers; and higher scores for ACT ‘informal interactions’ denoting more discussions about care between colleagues. Both had similarly positive attitudes to the CSNAT intervention pre-implementation, but by six months ‘low’ adoption services developed significantly more negative attitudes; while in ‘high’ adoption services attitudes mostly remained the same/improved.Linking evidence to action: Implementation may be more successful for services that offer regular opportunities to use the intervention in practice, have sufficient levels of facilitators, stimulate more staff discussion, and encourage maintenance of positive motivation. Implementation of person-centred interventions needs to plan for such factors. This has informed an implementation toolkit for the CSNAT intervention.

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.

Background: There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between 'intervention' and 'implementation', yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between. Discussion: To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively. Conclusion: Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is 'intervention' and what is 'implementation' in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse.

Background Multi-faceted approaches are generally recognised as the most effective way to support the implementation of evidence into practice. Audit and feedback often constitute one element of a multi-faceted implementation package, alongside other strategies, such as interactive education and facilitated support mechanisms. This paper describes a multi-faceted implementation strategy that used the Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (PACES) as an online audit tool to support facilitators working to introduce evidence-based continence recommendations in nursing homes in four different European countries. Aims/objectives The paper describes the experience of using PACES with an international group of nursing home facilitators. In particular, the objectives of the paper are: to describe the process of introducing PACES to internal facilitators in eight nursing homes; to discuss the progress made during a 12-month period of collecting and analysing audit data using PACES; to summarise the collective experience of using PACES, including reflections on its strengths and limitations. Methods Descriptive data were collected during the 12-month period of working with PACES in the eight nursing home sites. These data included digital and written notes taken at an initial 3-day introductory programme, at monthly teleconferences held between the external and internal facilitators and at a final 2-day meeting. Qualitative analysis of the data was undertaken on an ongoing basis throughout the implementation period, which enabled formative evaluation of PACES. A final summative evaluation of the experience of using PACES was undertaken as part of the closing project meeting in June 2011. Results The nursing home facilitators took longer than anticipated to introduce PACES and it was only after 9‐10 months that they became confident and comfortable using the system. This was due to a combination of factors, including a lack of audit knowledge and skills, limited IT access and skills, language difficulties and problems with the PACES system itself. The initial plan of undertaking a full baseline audit followed by focused action cycles had to be revised to allow a more staged, smaller-scale approach to implementation and audit. This involved simplifying the audit process and removing steps such as the calculation of population size estimates. As a result, an accurate baseline measure, prior to introducing changes to continence care, was not achieved. However, by the end of the 12 months, the majority of facilitators had undertaken a full audit and reported value in the process. In particular, they benefited from comparing audit data across sites to share learning and best practice. Discussion/conclusion Working with PACES as part of a facilitated programme to support the implementation of evidence-based continence recommendations in nursing homes in four European countries has been a valuable learning experience, although not without its challenges. The findings highlight the importance of thorough training and support for first time users of PACES and the need to make the audit process as simple as possible in the initial stages.

Health care faces challenges that are only partially addressed by incremental innovations. This paper outlines the potential for action learning to be used to challenge existing paradigms and mindsets. It provides the background and introduction to the concept, and describes the main principles and approach. Limitations in the theoretical conceptualization and research evidence about action learning are explored. Meanwhile, action learning has been used as a learning tool for graduate entry-level health service managers, senior health-care leaders, and students on postgraduate courses. Evaluations of these programmes have unearthed the key characteristics and benefits of effective action learning. The conclusions are that effective action learning is enabled by skilled facilitation, has benefits in embedding double-loop learning and developing personal resilience, and may result in enhanced organizational ambidexterity. Further work is now required to build a stronger conceptual framework and to e...

Aims. This paper reports a literature review exploring the relationship between quality of care and selected organizational variables through a consideration of what is meant by perceptions of quality, whose perceptions are accorded prominence, and whether changes in staffing, skill mix and autonomy affect perceptions of quality. Background. Three basic ideas underpin this literature review: the growing focus on quality improvement in health care, concerns about the quality of care, and the move towards patient involvement and consultation. Of particular interest is the way in which changes in nurse staffing, skill mix and autonomy may affect the delivery of quality patient care. Methods. A search was conducted using the CINAHL, Medline and Embase databases. Key words used were quality of health care; quality of nursing care; nurse; patient; skill mix; nurse–patient ratio; outcomes; adverse health care events and autonomy. The objective was to draw together a diverse collection of literature related to the field of health care quality. Papers were included for their relevance to the field of enquiry. The original search was conducted in 2003 and updated in 2004. Findings. Quality of care is a complex, multi-dimensional concept which presents researchers with a challenge when attempting to evaluate it. Traditional nursing assessment tools have fallen out of use, partly because they have failed to provide opportunities to engage with and access the views of patients or nurses. There is also evidence that patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality is compromised on a number of fronts. There is conflicting information on how nurses and patients think about quality. Research looking at the relationship between the selected organizational variables and perceptions of quality also suffers from a number of limitations. We argue that there is a requirement for more patient-centred research exploring perceptions of quality and differences in nurse staffing, skill mix and autonomy.

The challenges of implementing evidence-based practice are complex and varied. Against this background a framework has been developed to represent the multiple factors that may influence the implementation of evidence into practice. It is proposed that successful implementation is dependent upon the nature of the evidence being used, the quality of context, and, the type of facilitation required to enable the change process. This study sets out to scrutinize the elements of the framework through empirical enquiry.The aim of the study was to address the following questions: * What factors do practitioners identify as the most important in enabling implementation of evidence into practice? * What are the factors practitioners identify that mediate the implementation of evidence into practice? * Do the concepts of evidence, context and facilitation constitute the key elements of a framework for getting evidence into practice?The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: Exploratory focus groups (n = 2) were conducted to inform the development of an interview guide. This was used with individual key informants in case study sites. Phase 2: Two sites with on-going or recent implementation projects were studied. Within sites semi-structured interviews were conducted (n = 17).A number of key issues in relation to the implementation of evidence into practice emerged including: the nature and role of evidence, relevance and fit with organizational and practice issues, multi-professional relationships and collaboration, role of the project lead and resources.The results are discussed with reference to the wider literature and in relation to the on-going development of the framework. Crucially the growing body of evidence reveals that a focus on individual approaches to implementing evidence-based practice, such as skilling-up practitioners to appraise research evidence, will be ineffective by themselves.Key elements that require attention in implementing evidence into practice are presented and may provide a useful checklist for future implementation and evaluation projects.

Many nurses in a variety of clinical settings are facing the challenges posed by incorporating evidence-based practice in health care. Some of the steps involved in implementing evidence-based care in clinical practice are discussed and a two-step framework to assist practitioners in implementing evidence-based practice is outlined. Factors such as the relevance of specific guidelines or research, generalisability of research findings, the strength of the evidence relative to the risks and benefits of treatment, and patient preferences are discussed in terms of evidence-based decision making.

To evaluate the clinical application of national guidelines for neonatal nursing.Questionnaire survey.Thirty-nine neonatal care units in Sweden.Thirty-five of 39 nurse managers at all Swedish neonatal care units.Thirteen clinical guidelines for neonatal nursing care were presented in 1997. Recommendations on evidence-based nursing care and auditing measures were given. Most neonatal units in Sweden participated in the guideline development.Extent of guideline application, ways in which the guidelines were used and perceived usefulness.The guidelines were applied to different extents in 30 of the 35 units. Almost all the guidelines were applied, especially those covering general nursing care. In total, 72 Quality Improvement (QI) projects were reported, of which 51 concerned specific topics covered in the guidelines. Twenty units applied the guidelines as a starting point for QI. Four units evaluated nursing practice against the guidelines. Four factors [Dynamic Standard Setting System (DySSSy) as the QI method,or = 4 years of practice as nurse manager, experience of nursing research, and good staff resources] were closely related to a more extensive application of the guidelines. Units with both a nurse manager and an assistant nurse manager were more likely to have used the guidelines as the basis for changing clinical practice.The guidelines were successfully disseminated and diffused, but practitioner involvement in guideline development did not guarantee implementation. Downsizing, leadership and facilitation seemed to be crucial factors when getting evidence into practice. Limited occurrence of evaluations of clinical practice against guideline recommendations suggests a need for valid and user-friendly measures.

This article presents some of the data from a study exploring the experiences and views of a range of professional staff using care pathways in their everyday practice. It focuses on the views of doctors, nurses, and therapists. Within the context of delivering integrated care, several themes are explored in relation to the successful implementation of evidence-based care pathways.

Quality, audit and standard setting are major issues on the present day nursing and health care agenda. Considerable time, energy and resources have been invested in developing and implementing a range of different quality and audit systems, yet there is limited evidence to date to suggest that they are having any significant impact in terms of changing practice and improving patient care. This paper will present the results of a study undertaken to evaluate the implementation of three of the most common nursing quality systems used in the United Kingdom: Monitor, Qualpacs and the dynamic standard setting system (DySSSy). In each case, the focus was on identifying key factors in the process of implementation that could predict positive programme outcomes--defined in terms of acceptance by clinical nursing staff and perceived impact on the quality of patient care. The study adopted a three-stage evaluation design, with three distinct levels of investigation and analysis, and utilized a range of descriptive and exploratory methods. In total, 14 sites implementing one of the three nursing quality systems were studied. Additional data, derived from individuals' experiences of implementing quality in nursing, were used to enhance and validate the findings. The results indicated a number of important system-related, contextual and practical issues of implementation. These were underpinned by two key factors, defined as ownership for quality and action to improve. However, most present day nursing quality programmes appear to be failing to embrace these two concepts simultaneously. The paper will conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for future developments in nursing and health care quality improvement.

When addressing the subject of quality assessment and audit in health care, confusion can arise over what they are, how they are applied in practice and with what effect. The aim of this paper is to clarify the focus and scope of quality assessment and audit in health care, to consider their relationship to the research process and to discuss ways in which they can be most effectively utilised to contribute to improvements in health care.

Background Effective implementation of change in healthcare organisations involves multiple professional and organisational groups and is often impeded by professional and organisational boundaries that present relatively impermeable barriers to sharing knowledge and spreading work practices. Informed by the theory of communities of practice (CoPs), this study explored the effects of intra-organisational and inter-organisational boundaries on the implementation of service improvement within and across primary healthcare settings and on the development of multiprofessional and multi-organisational CoPs during this process. Methods The study was conducted within the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester—a collaborative partnership between the University of Manchester and local National Health Service organisations aiming to undertake applied health research and enhance its implementation in clinical practice. It deployed a qualitative embedded case study design, encompassing semistructured interviews, direct observation and documentary analysis, conducted in 2010–2011. The sample included practice doctors, nurses, managers and members of the CLAHRC implementation team. Findings The study showed that in spite of epistemic and status differences, professional boundaries between general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers co-located in the same practice over a relatively long period of time could be successfully bridged, leading to the formation of multiprofessional CoPs. While knowledge circulated relatively easily within these CoPs, barriers to knowledge sharing emerged at the boundary separating them from other groups existing in the same primary care setting. The strongest boundaries, however, lay between individual general practices, with inter-organisational knowledge sharing and collaboration between them remaining unequally developed across different areas due to historical factors, competition and strong organisational identification. Manipulated emergence of multi-organisational CoPs in the context of primary care may thus be problematic. Conclusions In cases when manipulated emergence of new CoPs is problematic, boundary issues could be addressed by adopting a developmental perspective on CoPs, which provides an alternative to the analytical and instrumental perspectives previously described in the CoP literature. This perspective implies a pragmatic, situational approach to mapping existing CoPs and their characteristics and potentially modifying them in the process of service improvement through the combination of internal and external facilitation.

Research has demonstrated a knowledge and practice gap in the identification and management of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In 2009, published data showed that general practices in Greater Manchester had a low detection rate for CKD.A 12-month improvement collaborative, supported by an evidence-informed implementation framework and financial incentives.19 general practices from four primary care trusts within Greater Manchester.Number of recorded patients with CKD on practice registers; percentage of patients on registers achieving nationally agreed blood pressure targets.The collaborative commenced in September 2009 and involved three joint learning sessions, interspersed with practice level rapid improvement cycles, and supported by an implementation team from the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Greater Manchester.At baseline, the 19 collaborative practices had 4185 patients on their CKD registers. At final data collection in September 2010, this figure had increased by 1324 to 5509. Blood pressure improved from 34% to 74% of patients on practice registers having a recorded blood pressure within recommended guidelines.Evidence-based improvement can be implemented in practice for chronic disease management. A collaborative approach has been successful in enabling teams to test and apply changes to identify patients and improve care. The model has proved to be more successful for some practices, suggesting a need to develop more context-sensitive approaches to implementation and actively manage the factors that influence the success of the collaborative.

Background Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids. Objectives This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community. Setting and sample Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence Methods and design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.

Background: The English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between\ud higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health\ud Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and\ud implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a\ud natural ‘test bed’ for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery.\ud This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and\ud processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances.\ud Design and methods: This study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which\ud deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see\ud it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual\ud framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to\ud Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide indepth\ud comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including\ud interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of\ud data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an\ud interpretative forum.\ud Discussion: The idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health\ud research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is\ud limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for\ud implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g.,\ud Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge\ud translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts\ud particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement.

Background The paper combines the analytical and instrumental perspectives on communities of practice (CoPs) to reflect on potential challenges that may arise in the process of interprofessional and inter-organisational joint working within the Collaborations for Leaderships in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs)--partnerships between the universities and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts aimed at conducting applied health research and translating its findings into day-to-day clinical practice. Discussion The paper discusses seminal theoretical literature on CoPs as well as previous empirical research on the role of these communities in healthcare collaboration, which is organised around the following three themes: knowledge sharing within and across CoPs, CoP formation and manageability, and identity building in CoPs. It argues that the multiprofessional and multi-agency nature of the CLAHRCs operating in the traditionally demarcated organisational landscape of the NHS may present formidable obstacles to knowledge sharing between various professional groupings, formation of a shared 'collaborative' identity, and the development of new communities within the CLAHRCs. To cross multiple boundaries between various professional and organisational communities and hence enable the flow of knowledge, the CLAHRCs will have to create an effective system of 'bridges' involving knowledge brokers, boundary objects, and cross-disciplinary interactions as well as address a number of issues related to professional and organisational identification. Summary The CoP approach can complement traditional 'stage-of-change' theories used in the field of implementation research and provide a basis for designing theory-informed interventions and evaluations. It can help to illuminate multiple boundaries that exist between professional and organisational groups within the CLAHRCs and suggest ways of crossing those boundaries to enable knowledge transfer and organisational learning. Achieving the aims of the CLAHRCs and producing a sustainable change in the ways applied health research is conducted and implemented may be influenced by how effectively these organisations can navigate through the multiple CoPs involved and promote the development of new multiprofessional and multi-organisational communities united by shared practice and a shared sense of belonging--an assumption that needs to be explored by further empirical research.

Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.

The RCN DQI Network programme contributes to the quality of patient care through sharing knowledge, skills and information on quality improvement, audit and clinical effectiveness.

A tool was developed, using the nominal group and Delphi techniques, to explore healthcare staff's perceptions of the quality of hospital care provided in the United Kingdom compared with a tool from the United States. Similarities were identified in many core areas; however, there were several differences between the UK and US tools. This article identifies the process and findings and discusses possible reasons for similarities and differences between the tools.

In tracing developments in health care quality, a number of different approaches to quality evaluation can be identified, differing in terms of the specific focus and means of achieving quality. This paper attempts to classify the development of quality in health care, drawing on experiences within the industrial quality movement. Three distinct models of quality evaluation are described, according to whether they define quality at an individual level, as an exercise in inspection, or as a method for continuous improvement. Developments in quality and audit in health care are explored in relation to the models and specific experiences within nursing and medicine are compared. The need to be aware of the history of quality within specific professional groups is highlighted, particularly within the context of future developments in health care quality and the growing focus on multi-professional collaboration.

Objective: To evaluate a strategy for supporting nurses to work with quality improvement (QI). Design: Post-intervention evaluation. Study participants and intervention: 240 nurses participated in a uniformly designed 4 day basic training course in applying a model for QI. Of these, 156 nurses from over 50 healthcare institutions constituted the generic education (GE) group while 84 nurses from 42 neonatal units took part in a project to develop national guidelines, constituting the targeted intervention (TI) group. Method: Postal questionnaire 4 years after the training courses. Results: The response rate was 80% in the TI group and 64% in the GE group. Nurses in the TI group had a significantly higher rate in completing all phases of the QI cycle (p=0.0002). With no differences between the groups, 39% of all nurses were still involved in QI work 4 years after the training courses. Three factors were significantly related to nurses continuing their involvement in QI projects: remaining employed on the same unit (OR 11.3), taking courses in nursing science (OR 4.1), and maintenance of the same QI model (OR 3.1). Reported motives for remaining active in QI work were the enhancement of knowledge, influence over clinical practice, and development as a nurse. Reasons for discontinuation were organisational restructuring, a lack of facilitation and knowledge, and change of workplace. Conclusions: Participation in a national guideline project, including a common focus for improvement, facilitation and opportunities for networking, seems to have enhanced the ability to carry out the process of QI, but not to sustain the QI work over a longer period.