Paper: The concepts of scalability...

A new paper is out which looks at the concepts of scalability - what is meant by it and how to health promotion interventions consider scalability.

"Increased focus on prevention presents health promoters with new opportunities and challenges. In this context, the study of factors influencing policy-maker decisions to scale up health promotion interventions from small projects or controlled trials to wider state, national or international roll-out is increasingly important. This study aimed to: (i) examine the perspectives of senior researchers and policy-makers regarding concepts of 'scaling up' and 'scalability'; (ii) generate an agreed definition of 'scalability' and (iii) identify intervention and research design factors perceived to increase the potential for interventions to be implemented on a more widespread basis or 'scaled up'. A two-stage Delphi process with an expert panel of senior Australian public health intervention researchers (n = 7) and policy-makers (n = 7) and a review of relevant literature were conducted. Through this process 'scalability' was defined as: the ability of a health intervention shown to be efficacious on a small scale and or under controlled conditions to be expanded under real world conditions to reach a greater proportion of the eligible population, while retaining effectiveness. Results showed that in health promotion research insufficient attention is given to issues of effectiveness, reach and adoption; human, technical and organizational resources; costs; intervention delivery; contextual factors and appropriate evaluation approaches. If these issues were addressed in the funding, design and reporting of intervention research, it would advance the quality and usability of research for policy-makers and by doing so improve uptake and expansion of promising programs into practice.

Health Promot Int. 2013 Sep;28(3):285-98. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dar097. Epub 2012 Jan 12.

Milat AJ, King L, Bauman AE, Redman S."

Spread and implementation; making practices real

At a recent awayday for a team in Sweden who are working to improve the experience of life for  the elderly, I had the fortune to listen to and work with Bodil Jonsson. I was thinking out loud and expressing my concern that the use of the word “spread” may allow people using it to disengage with the reality of what is involved. There is an ease by which leaders say “spread”, and then disengage themselves from the detail of what it means. So insteadI tend to use “implementation” as this word, to me, has a more active feel, and directs the users to consider what might be involved.

Bodil suggested the Swedish word “forverkliga” (please imagine the two dots on the o). This means to make real”. This was a light bulb moment for me. Think about guidelines; is the issue to spread them, to implement them – or to make them real. I like forverkliga because reality is made in one’s own context, thus enabling adaption, without further explanation And making real is far more than the objective task of copying another’s good idea. Instead it is the process of taking another’s idea and focusing on the added value to, say, the patient; unless something is made real, there is no value.

In my mind’s eye I say websites full of stories and examples, of guidelines and exhortations – and at once, saw useful information, that was of no value unless “made real”.

Forverkliga.

Leaders need to role model "Spread"

If asked what the one thing leaders can do to better enable the spread and adoption of good practice in their organisation, it would be - "Be a role model".

I wrote in this blog on this topic back in May: "Why don't we search for evidence."

It's no good leaders exhorting that their staff need to adopt good practice and to use "evidence" if they don't do the same.  There's no quick fix. There's no substitution.

Next time you wonder why it is your staff don't search for, adopt or actively spread known good practices, then ask yourself when last you searched for or adopted a good practice.

How does organisational context impact spread and adoption

Those who know me, know I am critical of the continued use of Roger's Diffusion Curve as a means of telling people how and how to plan for the spread and adoption of good practice. If you read Roger's work in depth you will understand its limitations.

One of these is the lack of attention to context. It's fairly obvious to anyone involved in spread and adoption of good practice that leadership, organisational culture and readiness to change etc. are all important in the process. The problem is, although many models and frameworks are drawn up to show how context is important - which is an excellent first step - there is a shortage of published work on the topic.

A key problem is that those who publish ignore the contextual factors.  A recent review paper by Emmens, Weiner & Fernandez looks at this issue.


Health Educ Behav. 2012 Feb;39(1):87-105. Epub 2011 Jul 1.
Systems antecedents for dissemination and implementation: a review and analysis of measures 

Seven Key Factors in how minds change - 1: Changing Minds

Notes from the book "Changing Minds" by Howard Gardner (2004)

What I learnt was that if we want to help someone change their mind about what constitutes good practice (and thereby figure their practice is not the best so they need to decide to adopt a better practice), then it helps if we can:

1. Demonstrate what has to be changed in a way that someone can figure out for themselves what the reason is for them to change. Some people do this analytically and others deduce or infer from what they learn that a change is necessary. I think it's important to understand it's the adopter who needs to reason, not the person pushing the change.
2. Research, evidence, statistical analysis etc is crucial when working with healthcare professionals for whom this is the base of their practice. The onus of evidence is on the person pushing the change.
3. The proposed change needs to connect at the emotional and intuitive level with the potential adopter. The really good proponents of change can combine the emotive, rational and evidence content in their rhetoric.
4. The concept of redesciption intrigued me. I can see now that the person who can describe the proposed change in many different ways, whilst remaining true to the core concepts and values, is more likely to be able to convince others to change.  Not least, being able to redescribe means you know your stuff and this enhances the credibility of the proposal.
5. Rewards are obvious - pay someone and they are more likely to do it. But this doesn't always lead to the mind changing. The most basic reward is praise and confirmation of the new behaviour.
6. Real World Events - means tagging your proposals to outside influences. As a friend pointed out to me recently, a great time to raise the profile of pancreatic cancer would have been in the days after Steve Jobs died. To make the most fo these (not always sad) events, is to be prepared.
7. Resistance... it takes two to create resistance. The best way I know to deal with it is to stop pushing and to see things form the other's perspective - then, find a way to break through the debate.

Canadian Best Practices Portal - Healthcare

The Public Health Agency of Canada has a very interesting website: Canadian Best Practices Portal.  I think it is an excellent example of helping to spread good practice.

1. It describes interventions (best practices) without overly classifying them. The reader can make their own judgements of value and worth. I also like the way these are summarised as they are written for the reader and not as corporate sales pitches which is a temptation other organisations fall foul of. 
2. The resources have a great at-glance feature which show how they relate to define, search, appraise, synthesise, adapt, implement, evaluate.
3. Their list of systematic review sites is extensive and pitches these best practices as being based on evidence which is both appropriate and welcome for healthcare interventions.

Video: Christakis on Social Networks, Spread

Nicholas Christakis is my hero - his research is moving us on from the staid, static and way out of date work of Rogers (Diffusion of Innovations). I recommend spending 18 minutes to watch the video below if you're part of or planning any large scale change, social movement (not that I believe they can be planned), spread of project results.

The shift to norms being spread and not behaviours is significant. What are you doing in your own project work to build on this?

New Paper: What is the experience of national quality campaigns?

I liked the conclusion in this paper - "..may depend on.." as it summarised my experience of national quality campaigns - the results depend on a multitude of factors - and I would add depends on the perspective/s of the stakeholders involved.

 Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec;45(6 Pt 1):1651-69.

What is the experience of national quality campaigns? Views from the field.

Bradley EH, Nembhard IM, Yuan CT, Stern AF, Curtis JP, Nallamothu BK, Brush JE Jr, Krumholz HM.

OBJECTIVE: To identify key characteristics of a national quality campaign that participants viewed as effective, to understand mechanisms by which the campaign influenced hospital practices, and to elucidate contextual factors that modified the perceived influence of the campaign on hospital improvements.

CONCLUSIONS: The impact of national quality campaigns may depend on both campaign design features and on the internal environment of participating hospitals.

Influencers: How trends become Contagious

The DigitalBuzz blog is one of my great sources. They found a high video (a film, really) Influencers: How trends become Contagious from R+I Creative that documents the importance of Influencers in setting new trends that move to mainstream. No theory, models or management gobbledegook in it!

Options for large scale spread; excellent new report by WHO, IHI, Harvard

A new report about large scale change and spread of simple, high impact interventions is available now. And it is a really good summary of methods old and new. I highly recommend it for anyone planning simple large scale spread, especially if you think you know the answers. This report summarises a variety of methods and is very pragmatic in it's use of examples.

The World Health Organization Patient Safety Programme and the Harvard School of Public Health commissioned the United States Agency for International Development’s Health Care Improvement Project (HCI), managed by University Research Co., LLC (URC), to present its understanding of and experience with the effective adoption of simple, high-impact interventions, such as the Surgical Safety Checklist. URC is joined in this effort by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, which also has decades of experience in this field.

Readers should note this report and advice covers the spread of simple, high impact changes - namely it does not cover complex, system related changes.

The report covers:

III. Spreading Evidence-based Interventions
IV. The Scientific Basis for Spread
A. Framework for Spread
B. Individual Adoption and Behavior Change
C. Positive Deviance
D. Factors that Influence the Rate of Spread
E. Understanding the Social System
F. Integrating Content into Process Design
G. Testing and Implementing Change
H. Executing for System-level Results
V. Approaches for Large-scale Spread
A. Natural Diffusion Approach
B. Executive Mandates
C. Extension Agents Approach
D. Emergency Mobilization Approach
E. Affinity Group Approach
F. Collaborative Approach
G. Virtual Collaborative
H. Wave Sequence Approach
I. Campaign Approach
J. Hybrid Approaches
K. Lessons Learned from Large-scale Spread
VI. Which Approach Should Be Used to Disseminate Checklists?

(And thank you to the authors of the report for referencing my book on how good practice doesn't spread)

Mobile learning may be more significant than web learning for healthcare

Educational methods have long been one of the key strategies to encourage the adoption of existing good practice and evidence in healthcare. The predominant method is face-to-face sessions though over the last three or four years this has started to be replaced by virtual sessions. The Web has been the technology used ofr the virtual learning, however, the advent of smart phones suggests learning via the mobile may be overtake the web portion of learning and may dig deeper into the face-to-face session.

The chart above comes from Ambient Insight Research who have an excellent article on this topic.

Are your spread plans including the use of mobile learning and technology?.

Using Twitter in the Classroom or Organisation

Twitter feels like one of those applications that has been searching for its use. Within healthcare, specifically the NHS in England, its use has been limited. Many organisations see it only as another media channel through which they advertise their services. A few, however, have grasped its potential to spread the word  in a personal way and are using Twitter as a means of engaging with patients and staff. A good example is @OBMH (Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health).

While healthcare is prevaricating and the organisations that preach and teach innovation are being slow to catch onto what is now practically a mainstream communication method, education has been stealing a march. An excellent blog post about using Twitter in the classroom includes a framework which made huge sense to me and helped me think through how best to use twitter in a training event as well as for the duration of a healthcare improvement project.

Not only does it help communication for the project it also adds in the "spread" and "Scale up" component that it so often missing.   If you are worried about the word student, then substitute patient or staff member. What I particularly like about this framework is it is a way for organisations using Twitter to self assess their use of it.

(Picture from Prof Hacker http://chronicle.com/blogPost/A-Framework-for-Teaching-with/26223/)

The quickest way to spread scale up change

The most common question I am asked is whether there is a quick way to spread desired change across groups.

My Nobel Prize entry for answering this question is as follows:

"Yes and No"

The fact you are asking the question means you are in a type of powerful relationship over those with whom you want to interact and change. Namely you want them to do something different/ly and you want them to do it quickly.

The "Yes" answer is dependent on the carrot and stick approach. Pay a twelve year old to clean his bedroom and if the reward is big enough, the bedroom will be cleaned. Pay doctors a reward for meeting a quality target and they will achieve it (evidence the NHS and GPs). The stick approach is less effective but still works. It is no longer common to see anyone on their mobile phone while driving in the England. The stick of a fine and points on your license has worked, combined with appeals to common sense.

The "No" answer comes from asking questions like those listed below. If I get more than two or three "No's" in response then I suggest to the person asking that they have probably answered their own question.
- are you making the change yourself?
- can you describe to me the three main reasons why the person you want to change thinks this will be a good idea?
- do you apply the methods you are proposing in your own work and/or personal life?
- is your reason for this work more than doing a good research project you can publish later
- will the person/group you want to change see the change as coming from somewhere other than yourself?
- do your plans involve more than a communication exercise?
and so on

Crowdsourcing shifts us from what to how

"to improve" is a verb. A verb is a "doing word". Improvement is action. Collecting and storing examples of good practice is a displacement for action. Huge knowledge banks where the thing of the 1980's (yes, thirty years ago) and by the late 1990's were largely discredited as a mechanism for helping spread good practice. The few organisations that did manage to leverage the codified knowledge, did so because they institutionalised through clever IT systems, the search and sharing of knowledge. Note, this sharing was linked to the individuals with the ideas and not odd pieces of extracted information. The personal relationship mattered.

What does the modern day action to improve look like when we are aiming to avoid the reinvention of wheels?

a) We crowdsource. We call on the community for their ideas. However, asking for and then collating ideas is not crowd sourcing - it is a cheap way to create an ineffective database. Crowdsourcing works when participants rate ideas, decide which is best. Many organisational leaders fear crowdsourcing because the answers may not be what they want.

b) We get more active in presenting the problems and then asking people to provide answers - as an open call. The joy in this approach is it is not limiting the solution to the thinking and mindsets of employees. This has been around for at least a decade and the are many websites and systems to help make this happen. Some organisations even provide all their data so others, not part of the organisation, can use it to help solve the problem. The first step to making this happen s to give up control and to ask for help.

In the UK we are experiencing the crowdsourcing as the Government has set up systems to ask for ideas on solving problems. I like the way they are asking the citizens on ideas and not restricting it to Government employees only.

Crowdsourcing gives the vote to the hungry consumers and nto to the turkeys.

Some Crowdsourcing links and resources


1. Wikipedia: for starters

2. IdeaScale is where you can set up your own Q&A and ranking community for innovations. There are hundreds of existing web applications for crowdsourcing so if you are spending money creating your own then let's hope there is am excellent reason for doing so.

3. Fevote - place to make suggestions and get votes on them (great for research and tests of change)

4. Kluster: - stunning group decision-making tool

5. Good blog post on crowd sourcing resources

Designing for large scale change

The scale of "large" change depends on your perspective and intent. Usually, any change of significance feels large scale if it dominates a large part of your life. At what point does the PDSA cycle method become less than useful in delivering change?

In healthcare improvement work over the last 10 or more years we have been fixed within the domain of PDSA cycles and the Improvement Model. This is a useful technique in (a) testing out ideas where we are unsure whether they will work and (b) in implementing change on a small scale. These methods have a tendency to produce large number of pilot projects, many of which demonstrate good results. The exhortation is then to "scale up" or "spread" the results to others. So far, this has proven very difficult - and not unreasonably so.

The difference between designing for scale and doing Improvement Model/PDSA type projects lies in the intent. If the intent is for all those for whom the topic is applicable to implement changes to demonstrate an improvement, then consider what might be the opportunities if the focus is on large scale design rather than demonstrator projects:

i) a large scale intent most likely has a large scale context; working with the wider system may help to identify areas where smaller changes can have a big impact. Namely, large scale design does not mean everyone has to do a lot of change. It could mean that if a few, cleverly targeted areas changed, then everyone benefits. We can only find these possibilities if we work with intent and the larger system
ii) we consider how the context interrelates to the aims of the project; context is critical in the process of adopting change ideas. Without highlighting and working on the context change is difficult to achieve
iii) with design as a focus and scale as the objective then we are more likely to seek out innovative solutions to age old problems. Sometimes replicating what we perceive to be good practice may in fact be part of what is hold back large scale improvement.

If you find it difficult to spread from pilot projects then maybe it's time to consider a design process for large scale improvement.

For more on why good practice doesn't spread, go to this book

The continuum of spread: from outward communication to behavioural change

A few days ago I toyed with the idea of producing an FAQ sheet to cover the top 10 questions I am asked about how to spread good practice. Then I realised the answers are in my books and also in this blog. However, I'll revisit some of these questions over the coming weeks.

The top question is.... "how do I spread good practice"! And this usually sends me into panic mode. My immediate response includes:
What do you want to spread (and really, what, like skills, attitudes, behaviours etc)
How do you know it is good practice and who will recognise it as such?
Who is the target audience? Are you sure you are meaning individuals and not organisations?
What do you need people to do?
Why are you planning to do this? What is your stated and underlying intention?
I could go on...

I realise now that in most cases the big question comes from people in charge of something. Either they have the legitimate authority for a group (like Medical Director, CEO) or they are in a facilitative role (National body, program managers, consultancy). In both cases they want someone else to do something. The word "spread" gets used because either they have little authority over the people they want to change or they believe a softer-bottom-up-gentle approach will help people make the change. They may be right.

As the request to spread is coming from those "in charge" it is not surprising that the underlying question I think they are trying to ask is "How can we best communicate our good practice?". How do we communicate in a way that enables the right people to become aware of and do something about our topic? This is the standard approach to spread.

My experience in the last 10+ years on helping make large scale changes across healthcare systems is communication strategies and plans are not enough. Consider this continuum:

Spread (Communicate/Market/Advertise)--->
Communicate for behaviour change (Social Marketing)--->
Organisational change activities (OD, improvement projects)

Traditional spread programs limit themselves to clever and thoughtful (hopefully) design of outward communication. I say hopefully because in the most cases in healthcare the default button is set to "write an article" or "type up a case study".

As a minimum I feel spread needs to include the behavioural change aspect. Without this the communication is worth-less. The techniques from social marketing are a good place to start. This also means the behaviours required to change need to be identified as part of the "what" of the good practice.

Finally there is the perspective of the organisation. Again, my experience has led me to favour this approach. When the intended changes are part of or as a minimum identified as contribution to the organisation's purpose and objectives, with appropriate leadership support, then imprivement happens. Without this contextual setting the speed of adoption is much slower. Also, the breadth of adoption across the organisation may be limited. And there may be inappropriate adaptation to the good practice to such an extent that the intended benefits are not achieved.

So how do we spread good practice? I suggest the first place to start answering this question is to ask "why do you want to spread this good practice?". The aim here is to answer this in detail to get beyond the "to make things better" answer. This reframing will elicit the underlying motives and will direct an appropriate spread strategy.

SMS Texting Campaigns; awareness to action

Mobile phone technology has the means to change lives. A number of campaigns have been running where SMS/texting technology is being used not to raise awareness but rather to deliver action. I'm interested in this as it is breaking some of the "communication rules" and what is in the old research about how ideas spread and are adopted.

An excellent example is from UK Transplant where there are a number of campaigns running to increase the number of people prepared to donate tissue and organs. In the South West of England a campaign is running until April 2010 combining regular advertising and sms texting. The posters create awareness and then if anyone standing int he bus shelter wants to act by registering on the UK Transplant Organ Donor site they can send a simple test to a number with the word GIVE. This is still a pilot and the resulst will be interesting. I am all in favour of innovative ways of moving from awareness to action and this method is modern and relevant to societal trends.

If you want to add your name to the register then go to become a donor
If you want to read about this campaign go to sms campaign

Adoption of guidelines: trust?

A perennial issue on spread and adoption is how clinical guidelines are adopted - or not. There is an industry researching what happens, what might be useful intervention and what you can then do to increase the speed and amount of adoption.

My own rather accidental piece of "research" raised a new question for me: to what extent is trust both an enabler and disabler of the adoption process?

So I've been cooking. The real thing, with recipes. I spent the better part of a month working through many of the Women's Institute favourite 650 recipes. A trusted cookbook and mostly failsafe. What I found is it is incredibly difficult to follow a recipe down to all the details. The more I used recipes the more I found myself adapting them - to varying degrees of success.

Then I moved on to Nigella's Express cookbook. A week later I noticed I was slavishly adhering to every minute detail. Not like me at all. So what was going on here?

Nigella writes in the first person and the way recipes are written has engaged me in a new way. When a note in brackets suggests options, reassures you that she really did mean 250ml double cream or reinforces why this step is important, then it seems more trust in the process is repaid by more attention to detail in following instructions.

Many clinical guidelines are produced by committees. Yes they may be great sets of instructions, however, are they written as mechanisms that attract trust? I wonder what would happen if a trusted peer rewrite guidelines in a personal language and tone. Would they be adopted more quickly?

I did think maybe this is about personal choice of style of communication. Maybe. And should that detract from finding some novel ways to encourage the adoption of guidelines?

Stories and Examples are different

We know that stories engage hearts and minds more than bullet points on a PowerPoint or a three page proposal. I believe there is a very important difference between stories and examples.

Stories are personal. I know a story when the person telling it comes alive with the emotions attached to the story. I can feel their passion, enthusiasm, sadness, delight - whatever. I am drawn into their personal experience. It is stories like this that engage me.

When someone stands on a stage and tells someone else's story - then for me that is an example. No matter how much we resonate with the other person's story their passion, enthusiasm, sadness, delight - whatever - is unlikely to be captured by the example-teller. Examples are helpful, though I suggest they are no different from the paragraphs in papers. They are second-hand and no longer associated with the context and emotions that go with them.

I am sometimes asked if a story I have used can be used by someone else. I usually recommend they find a way of developing their own reservoir of stories. This is sometimes difficult. Those who develop and advance theories may find their work disconnected from the reality of practice. The best way to both test the theories and develop your own stories is to test them out on a small scale. Not only will this provide self-confidence, it will also demonstrate the practicalities of your theory or suggestion and increase your personal credibility as you have a personal story to tell.

In the event you are unable to experience your own story, then I suggest capturing someone else's using a short video. Then allow their story to be told as they wish.

In the next week, try to focus on gathering, maintaining, treasuring your own stories. If you find yourself giving an example - telling someone else's story - then take a breather and see how you might do something differently to get the outcomes you desire from your listeners.

Photo from www.freephoto.com

Stimulating the desire to share

So I've been taking notes for a few weeks on why it is some people are really attracted to share some things, others are attracted to share very little. What is it that stimulates one person clicko n the "share" button on You-Tube or any other social networking site? What prompts someone to forward a useful article? SO the notes I've been taking are around my own behaviour and desire to share. I am wondering how much of this is generalisable to other people and contexts.

1. Relationship building: sometimes I share something because I am aware it is part of continuing a relationship with someone. This can range form the more formal paper I've read that I hope someone else will also find useful, though to something more random like a video clip on You-tube that I thought someone in the family might find amusing. My sharing isn't something planned - it just sort of happens and when I see something I will trigger a "share". This made me think whether "relationship building" is something we consider or design with in mind when developing change programs.
2. Unknown sharing: this is a bit like the blindspot in the Johari window. I realised that I am on many social and business networking sites. It is possible for me to share a message, say on Twitter, and then this is retweeted (forwarded on to others). I have no idea who the people are, though Twitter is useful as it is possible to track the sharing - not so with email. Sometimes the only way I know something has been shared is when I get an email form someone I have never heard of yet they are commenting on something I said. This is a very powerful dynamic at work and I wonder how much this is taken into account when developing communication strategies? I've learnt how random this process is. Got to be in there and involved to have any sense of how the internet can generate both velocity (speed) as well as scaling up of a message.
3. Problem shared is a problem halved: I have found sharing problems and looking for support and answers from others is an important strategy for me. I use LinkedIn to pose questions and also reach out to colleagues. This means I have to describe my problem - this process of sharing usually means I end up part solving the problem as I do the definition! So I wonder whether in our change efforts we spend too much time requiring solutions to be articulated when one strategy may be to help people both find words to their problem as well as find someone to whom they can reach out.
4. Random sharing: ever found yourself telling your life story to someone sitting next to you on the bus and who you only met 30 seconds ago when you sat down?! Well, not quite as extreme, though I have found myself sharing all sorts of things with people which don't fall into relationship building (except perhaps very short term) or as precisely as problem solving. There is something opportunistic here. So I wonder whether we can help more of these opportunistic meeting happen in the workplace?
5. Good idea promotion: yes, I did do some promotion activities, sharing good practices I have seen elsewhere and which may be useful to the person or team I was working with at the time. However, this was only a very small percentage of my "sharing" time. Standing on a stage and telling stories also counts a bit of good practice sharing, though again this was a small part of my sharing activity. So I wonder whether we are over cooking the need to share good ideas?

So what I discovered by my own behaviour is I have not consciously set out the share good practice and good ideas. It is a lot more random than that. Also, my desire to share is really quite complex. OK, I am only a sample size of one - if you have stories about your own desire to share then please write a comment below.

I will be doing some thinking before designing the next communication and "spread" intervention I am involved in.