Sustainabilty of QI results; we're not sure how to make it happen

I love systematic reviews. Someone else does the hard work of synthesising the literature and pointing out the strengths and weaknesses.

If you come across anyone purporting to tell you how you can sustain the results of your improvement work, then send them this paper.  Basically, we're not sure how sustainability happens other than it is a complex matter, and not one for a checklist or one day seminar. What I like about this systematic review is it points out the complexity, the system dynamics issues and the need for published work to identify the contextual factors in the sustainability (or not) or results.

Excellent work here by the authors.
Thank you.


Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 14;7(1):17. [Epub ahead of print]
The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research.
Wiltsey Stirman S, Kimberly J, Cook N, Calloway A, Castro F, Charns M.




Partial Abstract

"RESULTS:
Although "sustainability" was the term most commonly used in the literature to refer to what happened after initial implementation, not all the studies that were reviewed actually presented working definitions of the term. Most study designs were retrospective and naturalistic. Approximately half of the studies relied on self-reports to assess sustainability or elements that influence sustainability. Approximately half employed quantitative methodologies, and the remainder employed qualitative or mixed methodologies. Few studies that investigated sustainability outcomes employed rigorous methods of evaluation (e.g., objective evaluation, judgement of implementation quality or fidelity). Among those that did, a small number reported full sustainment or high fidelity. Very little research has examined the extent, nature, or impact of adaptations to the interventions or programs once implemented. Influences on sustainability included organizational context, capacity, processes, and factors related to the new program or practice themselves.
CONCLUSIONS:
Clearer definitions and research that is guided by the conceptual literature on sustainability are critical to the development of the research in the area. Further efforts to characterize the phenomenon and the factors that influence it will enhance the quality of future research. Careful consideration must also be given to interactions among influences at multiple levels, as well as issues such as fidelity, modification, and changes in implementation over time. While prospective and experimental designs are needed, there is also an important role for qualitative research in efforts to understand the phenomenon, refine hypotheses, and develop strategies to promote sustainment."

How is evidence being used?

Having moaned in this blog a few days ago about people not searching for evidence, I see a small group have set out a protocol to examine just how managers and professionals access the evidence.

I hope they will also do the negative study - those who are not accessing the evidence...


Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 21;7(1):22. [Epub ahead of print]
Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in healthcare. Study protocol.
Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Holmes AH.


"Abstract
BACKGROUND:
We know that patient care can be improved by implementing evidence-based innovations and applying research findings linked to good practice. Successfully implementing innovations in complex organisations, such as the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), is often challenging as multiple contextual dynamics mediate the process. Research studies have explored the challenges of introducing innovations into healthcare settings and have contributed to a better understanding of why potentially useful innovations are not always implemented in practice, even if backed by strong evidence. Mediating factors include health policy and health system influences, organisational factors, and individual and professional attitudes, including decision makers’ perceptions of innovation evidence. There has been limited research on how different forms of evidence are accessed and utilised by organisational decision makers during innovation adoption. We also know little about how diverse healthcare professionals (clinicians, administrators) make sense of evidence and how this collective sensemaking mediates the uptake of innovations.
METHODS:
The study will involve nine comparative-case study sites of acute care organisations grouped into three regional clusters across England. Each of the purposefully selected sites represents a variety of trust types and organisational contexts. We will use qualitative methods, in-depth interviews, observation of key meetings, and systematic analysis of relevant secondary data to understand the rationale and challenges involved in sourcing and utilising innovation evidence in the empirical setting of infection prevention and control. We will use theories of innovation adoption and sensemaking in organisations to interpret the data. The research will provide lessons for the uptake and continuous use of innovations in the English and international health systems.
DISCUSSION:
Unlike most innovation studies, which involve single-level analysis, our study will explore the innovation-adoption process at multiple embedded levels: micro (individual), meso (organisational), and macro (interorganisational). By comparing and contrasting across the nine sites, each with different organisational contexts, local networks, leadership styles, and different innovations considered for adoption, the findings of the study will have wide relevance. The research will produce actionable findings responding to the political and economic need for healthcare organisations to be innovation-ready."

Is the role of an organisational champion effective?

The label "champion" is a complex one to wear and one which I've been a bit cautious about recommending anyone use.  In the UK, it's been common to identify that enthusiastic doctor or nurse, label them the champion for the work and then expect them to get on and lead the changes.  Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't.

There's a really interesting paper published (by Hendy & Barlow, Imperial College, London) which examines the role of the champion and their effectiveness in one program in the UK. I like this research because it is lengthy (three years is a long time) and ethnographic. Their bottom line, it seems, is that it's good to be a champion in your own patch, but as soon as you're expected to deliver your champion role outside your regular context, then the effectiveness drops off. This is instinctively logical but all the same it's good to see some research on the topic.

Soc Sci Med. 2012 Feb;74(3):348-55. Epub 2011 Mar 1.
The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change.

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