No benefits from spread, scaling up unless the baseline is poor?

I've been going on about the issue of top-down spread / scaling up initiatives which overstate the benefits. For example, if the pilot projects gets a 50% improvement, then that is, of course, relevant to their baseline. And we can only translate this benefit across a system f we know the baseline of all the individual potential beneficiaries. The worse we can do is take a national average and then assume everyone can get the same 50% improvement that the pilot site obtained.

I've written about this in "Undressing the Elephant: Why good practice doesn't spread in healthcare" and it's great to see a systematic review based around diabetes care that supports the notion that "interventions solely targeted at healthcare professionals seem to be beneficial only is baseline HbA(1c) control is poor". [This research and paper was funded by Ontario Ministry for Health]

Lancet. 2012 Jun 16;379(9833):2252-61. Epub 2012 Jun 9
Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Moher D, Turner L, Galipeau J, Halperin I, Vachon B, Ramsay T, Manns B, Tonelli M, Shojania K.

Readiness for spread, dissemination, scaling up

Spread, scaling up, dissemination, diffusion - whatever you want to calls it - does NOT happen in healthcare in the automatic "tipping point" way of Gladwell.  This is largely because in healthcare, the NHS being one great example, the desire to spread is a top-down prescriptive one - which is most companies would be dealt with a a large scale implementation project.  Similarly, just focusing on how to describe and communicate  the innovation is not enough. (I've written about this in previous posts.)

Whatever you call it and whatever methods you use, there is evidence that there are some key factors which need to be in place before you set off on a large scale "thingy".  These are not clever, and, in fact, are annoyingly obvious. Obvious does not mean simple.  You already know about the list below and one major step forward in your large scale work is to examine why you're not working on these "readiness" factors.

1. Strategic focus: if the imitative is not named and talked about in the organisation (and team) level as a strategic piece of work to do, then it's probably not a large scale change or one which will be given priority
2. Executive sponsor: who in the organisation is responsible and accountable for the implementation (not the planning) of the change?
3. Day-to-day leadership: is the initiative being talked about?
4. Spread aim: is there a clear aim and method of measuring progress for spread / scaling up?
5. Spread / scaling up Plan: is there one? Is there one that scales down each level of implementation?
6. Costs: are the costs of the change clear? DO they include the staff time coasts? Is there an agreed ROI for the scale up?
7. How will fidelity be ensured? (Fidelity = what is scaled up / spread is the same as the initiator project)

Some references:

(There are many references available in peer-reviewed papers, however, as many of you have complained you don't have access to these, I have listed some more general and open access references. If you know of other easy access references then please comment on this blog.)

• IHI: A framework for spread
• Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality: Innovation readiness for spread
• Some of my books: Rolling out your project includes a whole section on diagnosing readiness for change.