Bridging the Silos: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation Science and Improvement Science

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of Safewards and the alignment to the i-PARIHS framework - A qualitative systematic review

Inpatient mental healthcare settings should offer safe environments for patients to heal and recover and for staff to provide high-quality treatment and care. However, aggressive patient behaviour, unengaged staff approaches, and the use of restrictive practices are frequently reported. The Safewards model includes ten interventions that aim to prevent conflict and containment. The model has shown promising results but at the same time often presents challenges to successful implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to review qualitative knowledge on staff experiences of barriers and enablers to the implementation of Safewards, from the perspective of implementation science and the i-PARIHS framework. A search of the Web of Science, ASSIA, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases resulted in 10 articles. A deductive framework analysis approach was used to identify barriers and enablers and the alignment to the i-PARIHS. Data most represented by the i-PARIHS were related to the following: local-level formal and informal leadership support, innovation degree of fit with existing practice and values, and recipients' values and beliefs. This indicates that if a ward or organization wants to implement Safewards and direct limited resources to only a few implementation determinants, these three may be worth considering. Data representing levels of external health system and organizational contexts were rare. In contrast, data relating to local (ward)-level contexts was highly represented which may reflect Safewards's focus on quality improvement strategies on a local rather than organizational level.

Implementation matters: assessing the effectiveness and sustainment of an obstetric triage program at a high-volume facility in Ghana

BACKGROUND

Maternal mortality remains stubbornly high in Ghana. Current national efforts are focused on improving the quality of care offered in health facilities. Obstetric triage is one intervention that has been proposed to improve the timeliness and appropriateness of care, two key elements of quality. In this study, we describe and evaluate a theory-based implementation approach to introduce obstetric triage into Tema General Hospital, a high-volume maternity hospital in Greater Accra, that blends concepts from implementation science and quality improvement. This implementation project was a first attempt to scale this intervention into a new facility, following initial development in the Greater Accra Regional Hospital (formerly Ridge Hospital) in Accra.

METHODS

This was a retrospective mixed-methods evaluation of two stages of implementation: active implementation and sustainment. We triangulated monitoring data captured during active implementation with clinical outcome data (timeliness of first assessment, accuracy of diagnosis, and appropriateness of care plan) from direct observation or patient obstetric triage assessment forms at baseline, at the completion of the active implementation stage, and following a 12-month "washout" period with no contact between hospital staff and the purveyor organization. Finally, we assessed embeddedness of the new triage procedures using the NoMad, a quantitative assessment of constructs from normalization process theory (NPT).

RESULTS

Patient waiting time decreased substantially during the study. At baseline, the median arrival-to-assessment waiting time was 70.5 min (IQR: 30.0-443.0 min). Waiting time decreased to 6.0 min (IQR: 3.0-15.0 min) following active implementation and to 5.0 min (IQR: 2.0-10.0 min) during the sustainment period. Accuracy of diagnosis was high at the end of active implementation (75.7% correct) and improved during the sustainment period (to 77.9%). The appropriateness of care plans also improved during the sustainment period (from 66.0 to 78.9%). Per NoMad data, hospital staff generally perceive obstetric triage to be well integrated into the facility.

CONCLUSIONS

This theory-based implementation approach proved to be successful in introducing a novel obstetric triage concept to a busy high-volume hospital, despite resource constraints and a short implementation window. Results proved long-lasting, suggesting this approach has high potential for engendering sustainability in other facilities as well. Our approach will be useful to other initiatives that aim to utilize program data to create and test implementation theories.

Using Theories, Models, and Frameworks to Inform Implementation Cycles of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems in Tertiary Health Care Settings: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are essential components of modern health system service delivery, particularly within acute care settings such as hospitals. Theories, models, and frameworks may assist in facilitating the implementation processes associated with CDSS innovation and its use within these care settings. These processes include context assessments to identify key determinants, implementation plans for adoption, promoting ongoing uptake, adherence, and long-term evaluation. However, there has been no prior review synthesizing the literature regarding the theories, models, and frameworks that have informed the implementation and adoption of CDSSs within hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to identify the theory, model, and framework approaches that have been used to facilitate the implementation and adoption of CDSSs in tertiary health care settings, including hospitals. The rationales reported for selecting these approaches, including the limitations and strengths, are described.

METHODS

A total of 5 electronic databases were searched (CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Embase) to identify studies that implemented or adopted a CDSS in a tertiary health care setting using an implementation theory, model, or framework. No date or language limits were applied. A narrative synthesis was conducted using full-text publications and abstracts. Implementation phases were classified according to the "Active Implementation Framework stages": exploration (feasibility and organizational readiness), installation (organizational preparation), initial implementation (initiating implementation, ie, training), full implementation (sustainment), and nontranslational effectiveness studies.

RESULTS

A total of 81 records (42 full text and 39 abstracts) were included. Full-text studies and abstracts are reported separately. For full-text studies, models (18/42, 43%), followed by determinants frameworks (14/42,33%), were most frequently used to guide adoption and evaluation strategies. Most studies (36/42, 86%) did not list the limitations associated with applying a specific theory, model, or framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Models and related quality improvement methods were most frequently used to inform CDSS adoption. Models were not typically combined with each other or with theory to inform full-cycle implementation strategies. The findings highlight a gap in the application of implementation methods including theories, models, and frameworks to facilitate full-cycle implementation strategies for hospital CDSSs.

What factors influence a Quality Improvement Collaborative in improving contraceptive services for foreign-born women? A qualitative study in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Improved contraceptive services could reduce the unmet need for contraception and unintended pregnancies globally. This is especially true among foreign-born women in high-income countries, as the health outcomes related to unmet need of contraception disproportionally affect this group. A widely used quality improvement approach to improve health care services is Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC). However, evidence on to what extent, how and why it is effective and what factors influence a QIC in different healthcare contexts is limited. The purpose of this study was to analyse what factors have influenced a successful QIC intervention that is aimed to improve contraceptive service in postpartum care, mainly targeting foreign-born women in Sweden.

METHODS

A qualitative, deductive design was used, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study triangulated secondary data from four learning seminars as part of the QIC, with primary interview data with four QIC-facilitators. The QIC involved midwives at three maternal health clinics in Stockholm County, Sweden, 2018-2019.

RESULTS

Factors from all five CFIR domains were identified, however, the majority of factors that influenced the QIC were found inside the QIC-setting, in three domains: intervention characteristics, inner setting and process. Outside factors and those related to individuals were less influential. A favourable learning climate, emphasizing co-creation and mutual learning, facilitated reflections among the participating midwives. The application of the QIC was facilitated by adaptability, trialability, and a motivated and skilled project team. Our study further suggests that the QIC was complex because it required a high level of engagement from the midwives and facilitators. Additionally, it was challenging due to unclear roles and objectives in the initial phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the CFIR framework identified crucial factors influencing the success of a QIC in contraceptive services in a high-income setting. These factors highlight the importance of establishing a learning climate characterised by co-creation and mutual learning among the participating midwives as well as the facilitators. Furthermore, to invest in planning and formation of the project group during the QIC initiation; and to ensure adaptability and trialability of the improvement activities.

Stewardship 2.0: Embracing elements of implementation science to enhance everyday antimicrobial Stewardship efforts

This article explores the utility of implementation science (IS) as a method to promote the effective uptake of antimicrobial stewardship processes. Elements of IS can be readily incorporated into QI work and used as a platform to extend stewardship reach. As stewards are stretched to do more, IS can be a potential vehicle to ensure that our collective work is impactful, sustainable, and contributes more broadly to clinically relevant improvements.

Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research

The saying "horses for courses" refers to the idea that different people and things possess different skills or qualities that are appropriate in different situations. In this paper, we apply the analogy of "horses for courses" to stimulate a debate about how and why we need to get better at selecting appropriate implementation research methods that take account of the context in which implementation occurs. To ensure that implementation research achieves its intended purpose of enhancing the uptake of research-informed evidence in policy and practice, we start from a position that implementation research should be explicitly connected to implementation practice. Building on our collective experience as implementation researchers, implementation practitioners (users of implementation research), implementation facilitators and implementation educators and subsequent deliberations with an international, inter-disciplinary group involved in practising and studying implementation, we present a discussion paper with practical suggestions that aim to inform more practice-relevant implementation research.

Varieties of improvement expertise: Knowledge and contestation in health-care improvement

The 'improvement' of health care is now established and growing as a field of research and practice. This article, based on qualitative data from interviews with 21 senior leaders in this field, analyses the growth of improvement expertise as not simply an expansion but also a multiplication of 'ways of knowing'. It illustrates how health-care improvement is an area where contests about relevant kinds of knowledge, approaches and purposes proliferate and intersect. One dimension of this story relates to the increasing relevance of sociological expertise-both as a disciplinary contributor to this arena of research and practice and as a spur to reflexive critique. The analysis highlights the threat of persistent hierarchies within improvement expertise reproducing and amplifying restricted conceptions of both improvement and 'better' health care.

Perspectives on the future of dissemination and implementation research in oral and craniofacial sciences

Dissemination and implementation science is a field of research that promotes the adoption and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in healthcare delivery and community settings and seeks to understand the processes by which such adoption and maintenance occur. While dissemination and implementation science is an established field in health services research, it is relatively new and making inroads in dental, oral and craniofacial research. This article summarizes the proceedings from a scientific panel on 'Dissemination and Implementation Science for Oral and Craniofacial Health' that was held during the international Behavioral and Social Oral Health Sciences Summit. The panelists were four experts on dissemination and implementation science in dental and non-dental academic settings in the United States and Scotland, with affiliations ranging from schools of dentistry and public health to the National Institutes of Health and a healthcare system with integrated dental services. The panel discussion addressed how dissemination and implementation science can be used to further oral health research. The narrative report presented here aims to describe the panelists' reflections and insights on their current initiatives in dissemination and implementation research to inform future research endeavors within the oral and craniofacial sciences. Specifically, this article focuses on six discussion topics: (1) how organizational determinants can serve as facilitators or barriers to the implementation of evidence-based dental practice; (2) how dentistry can 'de-implement' practices that are not effective; (3) how implementation science can support the delivery of evidence-based dental practice using adaptation; (4) how to get started in implementation science; (5) how the broader environment can support large-scale implementation efforts; and (6) how oral and craniofacial science is well suited for advancing dissemination and implementation research.

Facilitating facilitators to facilitate-Some general comments on a strategy for knowledge implementation in health services

Numerous endeavours to ensure that day-to-day healthcare is both evidence-based and person-centred have generated extensive, although partial, comprehension of what guarantees quality improvement. To address quality issues, researchers and clinicians have developed several strategies as well as implementation theories, models, and frameworks. However, more progress is needed regarding how to facilitate guideline and policy implementation that guarantees effective changes take place in a timely and safe manner. This paper considers experiences of engaging and supporting local facilitators in knowledge implementation. Drawing on several interventions, considering both training and support, this general commentary discusses whom to engage and the length, content, quantity, and type of support along with expected outcomes of facilitators' activities. In addition, this paper suggests that patient facilitators could help produce evidence-based and person-centred care. We conclude that research about the roles and functions of facilitators needs to include more structured follow-ups and also improvement projects. This can increase the speed of learning with respect to what works, for whom, in what context, why (or why not), and with what outcomes when it comes to facilitator support and tasks.

Together in care: Lessons learned at the intersection of integrated care, quality improvement, and implementation practice in opioid treatment programs

Background

Integrated care programs that systematically and comprehensively address both behavioral and physical health may improve patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of such programs in addiction treatment settings. This article is a practical implementation report describing the implementation of an integrated care program into two opioid treatment programs (OTPs).

Method

Strategies used to implement integrated care into two OTPs included external facilitation, quality improvement (QI) processes, staff training, and an integrated organizational structure. Service, implementation, and client outcomes were examined using qualitative interviews with program staff (n  =  16), program enrollment data, and client outcome data (n  =  593) on mental health (MH), physical health, and functional indicators.

Results

Staff found the program to generally be acceptable and appropriate, but also noted that the new services added to already busy workflows and more staffing were needed to fully reach the program's potential. The program had a high level of penetration (∼60%–70%), enrolling over 1,200 clients. Staff noted difficulties in connecting clients with some services. Client general functioning and MH symptoms improved, and heavy smoking decreased. The organizational structure and QI activities provided a strong foundation for interactive problem-solving and adaptations that were needed during implementation.

Conclusions

This article highlights an example of the intersection of QI and implementation practice. Simplified QI processes, consistent post-implementation meetings, and change teams and champions facilitated implementation; however, ongoing training and support, especially related to data are needed. The OTP setting provided a strong foundation to build integrated care, but careful consideration of new workflows and changes in philosophy for staff is necessary. Plain Language Summary: Providing medical and behavioral health treatment services in the same clinic using coordinated treatment teams, also known as integrated care, improves outcomes among those with chronic physical and behavioral health conditions. However, there are few practical examples of implementation of such programs in addiction treatment settings, which are promising, yet underutilized settings for integrated care programs. A multi-sectoral team used quality improvement (QI) and implementation strategies to implement integrated care into two opioid treatment programs (OTPs). The program enrolled over 1,200 clients and client general functioning and mental health (MH) symptoms improved, and heavy smoking decreased. Qualitative interviews provided important information about the barriers, facilitators, and context around implementation of this program. The OTP setting provided a strong foundation to build integrated care, but careful consideration of new workflows and changes in philosophy for staff, as well as ongoing training and supports for staff, are necessary. This project may help to advance the implementation of integrated care in OTPs by identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, lessons learned, as well as providing a practical example of potentially useful QI and implementation strategies.