Search

Abstract Background Two healthcare innovations were successfully implemented using different implementation strategies. First, a Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery (MaDO) was implemented in four early adopter hospitals, using a hospital-tailored implementation strategy. Second, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme for colonic surgery was implemented in 33 Dutch hospitals, using a generic breakthrough implementation strategy. Both strategies resulted in a shorter hospital length of stay without a decrease in quality of care. Currently, it is unclear to what extent these innovative programmes and their results have been sustained three to five years following implementation. The aim of the sustainability of healthcare innovations (SUSHI) study is to analyse sustainability and its determinants using two implementation cases. Methods This observational study uses a mixed methods approach. The study will be performed in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands, from November 2010. For both implementation cases, the programme aspects and the effects will be evaluated by means of a follow-up measurement in 160 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery and 300 patients who underwent colonic surgery. A policy cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will be performed prospectively for the Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery in 160 patients. To study determinants of sustainability key professionals in the multidisciplinary care processes and implementation change agents will be interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Discussion The concept of sustainability is not commonly studied in implementation science. The SUSHI study will provide insight in to what extent the short-term implementation benefits have been maintained and in the determinants of long-term continuation of programme activities.

Background: Despite the increased attention for assessing the effectiveness of implementation strategies, most implementation studies provide little or no information on its associated costs. The focus of the current study was to provide a detailed report of the resource use and costs associated with implementation of a short stay programme for breast cancer surgery in four Dutch hospitals. Methods: The analysis was performed alongside a multi-centre implementation study. The process of identification, measurement and valuation of the implementation activities was based on recommendations for the design, analysis and reporting of health technology assessments. A scoring form was developed to prospectively determine the implementation activities at professional and implementation expert level. A time horizon of 5 years was used to calculate the implementation costs per patient. Results: Identified activities were consisted of development and execution of the implementation strategy during the implementation project. Total implementation costs over the four hospitals were €83.293. Mean implementation costs, calculated for 660 patients treated over a period of 5 years, were €25 per patient. Subgroup analyses showed that the implementation costs ranged from €3.942 to €32.000 on hospital level. From a local hospital perspective, overall implementation costs were €21 per patient, after exclusion of the costs made by the expert centre. Conclusions: We provided a detailed case description of how implementation costs can be determined. Notable differences in implementation costs between hospitals were observed. Trial registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN77253391 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A quality improvement collaborative is an intensive project involving a combination of implementation strategies applied in a limited "breakthrough" time window. After an implementation project, it is generally difficult to sustain its success. In the current study, sustainability was described as maintaining an implemented innovation and its benefits over a longer period of time after the implementation project has ended. The aim of the study was to explore potentially promising strategies for sustaining the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme in colonic surgery as perceived by professionals, three to six years after the hospital had successfully finished a quality improvement collaborative. Methods A qualitative case study was performed to identify promising strategies to sustain key outcome variables related to the ERAS programme in terms of adherence, time needed for functional recovery and hospital length of stay (LOS), as achieved immediately after implementation. Ten hospitals were selected which had successfully implemented the ERAS programme in colonic surgery (2006-2009), with success defined as a median LOS of 6 days or less and protocol adherence rates above 70%. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were held with eighteen key participants of the care process three to six years after implementation, starting with the project leader in every hospital. The interviews started by confronting them with the level of sustained implementation results. A direct content analysis with an inductive coding approach was used to identify promising strategies. The mean duration of the interviews was 37 minutes (min 26 minutes - max 51 minutes). Results The current study revealed strategies targeting professionals and the organisation. They comprised internal audit and feedback on outcomes, small-scale educational booster meetings, reminders, changing the physical structure of the organisation, changing the care process, making work agreements and delegating responsibility, and involving a coordinator. A multifaceted self-driven promising strategy was applied in most hospitals, and in most hospitals promising strategies were suggested to sustain the ERAS programme. Conclusions Joining a quality improvement collaborative may not be enough to achieve long-term normalisation of transformed care, and additional investments may be needed. The findings suggest that certain post-implementation strategies are valuable in sustaining implementation successes achieved after joining a quality improvement collaborative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) experience difficulties in timely recognising and directing palliative care (PC) needs of their patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive tool to enable HCPs in timely recognising and directing PC needs in CHF., Methods: A four-stage mixed-method study was performed. Stage 1: identification of needs and questions of patients and families; stage 2: prioritisation and refinement of the needs and questions; stage 3a: testing and online feedback on V.1; stage 3b: selecting and refining care recommendations; stage 4: testing and review of V.2. Iterative reviews followed each step in the development process to ensure a wide range of stakeholder input. In total, 16 patients, 12 family members and 54 HCPs participated., Results: A comprehensive set of 13 PC needs was identified, redefined and tested. The resulting tool, called Identification of patients with HeARt failure with PC needs (I-HARP), contains an introduction prompt with open questions to start the conversation, 13 closed screening questions with additional in-depth questions, and recommendations on actions for identified needs., Conclusion: I-HARP contains an evidence-based set of questions and palliative CHF care suggestions for HCPs in the Netherlands. The resulting tool, approved by HCPs, patients and family members, is a promising guidance for HCP to timely recognise and direct PC needs in CHF., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives: Sustainability of innovations is a relatively new concept in health care research and has become an issue of growing interest. The current study explored factors related to the sustainability of 2 multidisciplinary hospital-based programs 3 to 6 years after achieving early implementation success., Method: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted into 2 implementation cases, an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program for colorectal surgery and a short-stay program for breast cancer surgery. Semistructured interviews were held with key persons involved in the care process in 14 hospitals from both cases minimally 3 years after the implementation, between March 2012 and May 2013. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to direct the development of the interview guide, during data collection and during analysis. A directed content analysis was performed., Results: A total of 21 interviews with 26 individuals were held, 18 regarding the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery case and 8 regarding the short-stay program case. Respondents mentioned the following factors associated with sustainability of the programs: modification and adaptability of the program, cost-effectiveness, institutionalization into existing systems, short communication lines within the multidisciplinary team, an innovative culture, benefits for patients, cosmopolitanism, the existence of external policies and incentives, trust and belief in the program, and spread of the program to other settings. Two factors are not covered by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, ie, modification of the program over the years and spread of the program to other contexts., Conclusions: The factors associated with sustainability put forward in both cases were largely the same. Leadership and the implementation project were not mentioned as having influenced the long-term sustainability of the benefits achieved. Sustainability of the innovations is influenced by determinants stemming from all ecological levels of the health care system and demands continuous effort in the postimplementation phase., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: Enhanced recovery pathways have been widely accepted and implemented for different types of surgery. Their overall effect in abdominal gynecologic surgery is still underdetermined. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to provide an overview of current evidence and to examine their effect on postoperative outcomes in women undergoing open gynecologic surgery., Material and Methods: Searches were conducted using Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library up to 27 June 2014. Reference lists were screened to identify additional studies. Studies were included if at least four individual items of an enhanced recovery pathway were described. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, complication rates, readmissions, and mortality. Quantitative analysis was limited to comparative studies. Effect sizes were presented as relative risks or as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Thirty-one records, involving 16 observational studies, were included. Diversity in reported elements within studies was observed. Preoperative education, early oral intake, and early mobilization were included in all pathways. Five studies, with a high risk of bias, were eligible for quantitative analysis. Enhanced recovery pathways reduced primary (MD -1.57 days, 95% CI CI -2.94 to -0.20) and total (MD -3.05 days, 95% CI -4.87 to -1.23) length of hospital stay compared with traditional perioperative care, without an increase in complications, mortality or readmission rates., Conclusion: The available evidence based on a broad range of non-randomized studies at high risk of bias suggests that enhanced recovery pathways may reduce length of postoperative hospital stay in abdominal gynecologic surgery., (© 2015 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Objectives: To evaluate (1) the state of the art in sustainability research and (2) the outcomes of professionals' adherence to guideline recommendations in medical practice., Design: Systematic review., Data Sources: Searches were conducted until August 2015 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN) library. A snowball strategy, in which reference sections of other reviews and of included papers were searched, was used to identify additional papers., Eligibility Criteria: Studies needed to be focused on sustainability and on professionals' adherence to clinical practice guidelines in medical care. Studies had to include at least 2 measurements: 1 before (PRE) or immediately after implementation (EARLY POST) and 1 measurement longer than 1 year after active implementation (LATE POST)., Results: The search retrieved 4219 items, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 18 sustainability evaluations. The mean timeframe between the end of active implementation and the sustainability evaluation was 2.6 years (minimum 1.5-maximum 7.0). The studies were heterogeneous with respect to their methodology. Sustainability was considered to be successful if performance in terms of professionals' adherence was fully maintained in the late postimplementation phase. Long-term sustainability of professionals' adherence was reported in 7 out of 18 evaluations, adherence was not sustained in 6 evaluations, 4 evaluations showed mixed sustainability results and in 1 evaluation it was unclear whether the professional adherence was sustained., Conclusions: (2) Professionals' adherence to a clinical practice guideline in medical care decreased after more than 1 year after implementation in about half of the cases. (1) Owing to the limited number of studies, the absence of a uniform definition, the high risk of bias, and the mixed results of studies, no firm conclusion about the sustainability of professionals' adherence to guidelines in medical practice can be drawn., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)