New systems model to simulate spread and adoption of good practice

I've worked with Ken Thompson of Bioteams to develop a systems simulation of the spread and adoption of good practice.  Our aim has been to provide a method for individuals and teams to play about with different strategies and to model the impacts of those strategies. It's not a prediction tool, but rather one which helps you gain an insight into the complexities  It's been important to us to produce a simulation which provides an adoption curve - having an idea of the speed (or not) of spread is crucial to your planning.

The simulation is ready for testing. It's not perfect, and we'd love to demo it and take your feedback on how to make it even better. Feel free to tweet Sarah @sarahfraser or Ken @kenthompson, leave a reply to this blog, or email Sarah, if you'd like to have a go.

A screenshot of the main screen is below. You can choose your strategies and then simulate, quarter by quarter, the rate of adoption. There are other input screens where you can assess your readiness for change and where you can enter details about the strategies you'd like to use.

Consistency of leadership matters

No matter what "evidence" you seek, leadership is always in the top ten of factors necessary for change and transformation of systems of care - or any system for that matter. There are books, papers and reviews all trying to qualify the type of leadership that works well.

I've been asking myself whether length of time in a leadership role makes a difference. When I look about me at the organisations who are held up as role models for good organisational processes, good collaborative working and good results - most often the leadership team has been in place for many years. Not just one leader, but at least 2 or 3 of the team.

Perhaps it important just to be there to hold the history and to maintain some form of continuity. Doing this while everything changes around you means the good leaders are naturally those who learn to adapt themselves  and their organisation, to the changing context.  I suspect they don't have great charismatic abilities, not do they espouse clever theories - they just get on with the job - year by year.

I applaud that level of commitment.

Paper: Complexity science and spread

Well, the best bit about this paper for me is the introduction of the terms SUS - scale up and spread!  It focuses on self organisation (complexity science principle) and how the complexity of healthcare and all the interactions are part of the problem of SUS programs.

Now, I'm biased and I'm with Ralph Stacey who says that when we think we can "control" or "use" self organisation then we are operating with a mindset not much different from Taylorism (see his work on complex responsive processes which superceded complex adaptive systems around 2001).

Whilst using insights from complexity science is useful, it is just that - an insight. When it comes to moving on to a more practical thought about - "so what do we do now", CAS and Complexity Science as such, falls flat.  There is a well trodden, pragmatic and practical systems theory and modelling that would be helpful in understanding interdependences - "Systems Thinking". Unfortunately it requires a bit of effort to grasp and seems not to have the cachet of "complexity science". Shame.

Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jul 4. [Epub ahead of print]
How complexity science can inform scale-up and spread in health care: Understanding the role of self-organization in variation across local contexts.
Lanham HJ, Leykum LK, Taylor BS, McCannon CJ, Lindberg C, Lester RT.

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."

Airlines & Healthcare; what can we learn

We consider airlines safe so in healthcare we adopt some (and only some) of the techniques they use to be safe - like checklists used by pilots and engineers. I say @some@ because we often forgot some of the more basic and fundamental safety aspects employed by arilines - the often more complex human resources, financial aspects, organisational learning, training etc.

Putting safety aside I read the report by the USA Bureau of Transportation on the statistics for 2009. In 2009 of the 19 airlines who reported they had an average on-time arrival performance of 79.5%. Hmmm. What I like about this figure is it represents the complexity of different airlines, operating in different ways, to different airports - and all affected in some way by the things out of their control, like the weather. This sounds to me like the healthcare system - in public sector systems anyway. So the airline travel system in 2009 was designed for 1 late arrival in every 5 flights. This makes me feel a lot better about the flow of patients around the National Health Service in England. A way higher percentage experiences experiences on time care. I also feel that the NHS is able to work well in a crisis like bad weather.

Ever lost your baggage? Well in the USA in 2009 3.91 bags were mishandled (isn't that a lovely term!) in every 1000 handled. This was an improvement from the 5.26 in 2008 - well done. As rates go these mishandlings are very few. Of course, if it is your bag lost, then the amount of year on year improvement and the overall rate is of no interest. A failure is a failure. This reminds me of the way most healthcare projects adopt goals that are less than perfect. For instance, 95% of patients to be treated xxx. What this tells me is that the improvement project team and the organisation are opting to design for a certain amount of failure. And I am not sure I am happy with this. Mistakes I can forgive. Designed in failure rate, often large ones, are to me a sign of lack of confidence in the people and processes. And as a patient I am less confident being treated there.

We have a great deal to learn about and adopt from other sectors as part of improving healthcare. What have you adopted from another industry and how has it worked for you?

We need system stars not individual stars

I thought I'd come up with a new idea only to discover that more than 80 years ago an article was written in The American Magazine about how perhaps the worst employee to have was the "brilliant" one because this was the person who would have lots of ideas, start them off and most likely never complete the work. You can read more about this orgininal article, called "Why I never hire brilliant men" here http://www.taoyue.com/stacks/articles/brilliant-men.html.

I'm interested in this topic because when it comes to the spread of good practice and scaling up good ideas across organisations and communities we so often focus on individuals. We point out the "champions", the so-called innovators, yet in my practical experience I am finding they really seem to be a turn-off at influencing others. I have written about this before.

What I am thinking about is that we focus on individuals because we are individuals. However, if we want system change we need to think about systems. And systems are not like individuals. They operate differently, to different rules, with different dynamics. We need to think decision-making processes, co-ordination, co-operation, collaboration and competition. Systems Thinking principles (from Senge's work) would be most appropriate here (more to come on this topic in future blogs).

So what we need are system stars for other systems to copy. We need to demonstrate that systems can operate the good ideas that we have. In healthcare we need to move away form the individualised models that we have and move away form the individualised model of scaling up to one which is more system focused - from its development through to its scaling up.

Creative Commons 2008 Sarah Fraser Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derviative