Search

Abstract Background This study presents guidelines for implementation distilled from the findings of a realist evaluation. The setting was local health districts in New South Wales, Australia that implemented three clinical improvement initiatives as part of a state-wide program. We focussed on implementation strategies designed to develop health professionals’ capability to deliver value-based care initiatives for multisite programs. Capability, which increases implementers’ ability to cope with unexpected scenarios is key to managing change. Methods We used a mixed methods realist evaluation which tested and refined program theories elucidating the complex dynamic between context (C), mechanism (M) and outcome (O) to determine what works, for whom, under what circumstances. Data was drawn from program documents, a realist synthesis, informal discussions with implementation designers, and interviews with 10 key informants (out of 37 identified) from seven sites. Data analysis employed a retroductive approach to interrogate the causal factors identified as contributors to outcomes. Results CMO statements were refined for four initial program theories: Making it Relevant– where participation in activities was increased when targeted to the needs of the staff; Investment in Quality Improvement– where engagement in capability development was enhanced when it was valued by all levels of the organisation; Turnover and Capability Loss– where the effects of staff turnover were mitigated; and Community-Wide Priority– where there was a strategy of spanning sites. From these data five guiding principles for implementers were distilled: (1) Involve all levels of the health system to effectively implement large-scale capability development, (2) Design capability development activities in a way that supports a learning culture, (3) Plan capability development activities with staff turnover in mind, (4) Increased capability should be distributed across teams to avoid bottlenecks in workflows and the risk of losing key staff, (5) Foster cross-site collaboration to focus effort, reduce variation in practice and promote greater cohesion in patient care. Conclusions A key implementation strategy for interventions to standardise high quality practice is development of clinical capability. We illustrate how leadership support, attention to staff turnover patterns, and making activities relevant to current issues, can lead to an emergent learning culture.

Abstract Background A broad-based international shift to virtual care models over recent years has accelerated following COVID-19. Although there are increasing numbers of studies and reviews, less is known about clinicians’ and consumers’ perspectives concerning virtual modes in contrast to inpatient modes of delivery. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods study in late 2021 examining consumers’ and providers’ expectations of and perspectives on virtual care in the context of a new facility planned for the north-western suburbs of Sydney, Australia. Data were collected via a series of workshops, and a demographic survey. Recorded qualitative text data were analysed thematically, and surveys were analysed using SPSS v22. Results Across 12 workshops, 33 consumers and 49 providers from varied backgrounds, ethnicities, language groups, age ranges and professions participated. Four advantages, strengths or benefits of virtual care reported were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, better care and health outcomes, and additional health system benefits, while four disadvantages, weaknesses or risks of virtual care were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, resources and infrastructure, and quality and safety of care. Conclusions Virtual care was widely supported but the model is not suitable for all patients. Health and digital literacy and appropriate patient selection were key success criteria, as was patient choice. Key concerns included technology failures or limitations and that virtual models may be no more efficient than inpatient care models. Considering consumer and provider views and expectations prior to introducing virtual models of care may facilitate greater acceptance and uptake.

Abstract Background Integrated care is a model recognised internationally, however, there is limited evidence about its usability in the community. This study aimed to elicit community and provider views about integrated care and how implementation could meet their healthcare needs in a new hospital. Methods Using a qualitative approach, consumer and provider views on the strengths, barriers and enablers for integrated care were collected via a series of online workshops and supplementary interviews. Results A total of 22 consumers and 49 providers participated in 11 focus groups; all perceived integrated care to be an accessible and efficient model that offers a high level of care which enhanced staff and patient well-being. Providers expressed concerns about longer waiting times and safety risks associated with communication gaps and insufficient staff. Enablers include supporting consumers in navigating the integrated care process, co-ordinating and integrating primary care into the model as well as centralising patient electronic medical records. Discussion Primary, tertiary and community linkages are key for integrated care. Successful interoperability of services and networks requires an investment in resources and infrastructure to build the capability for providers to seamlessly access information at all points along the patient pathway. Conclusion Integrated care is perceived by consumers and providers to be a flexible and patient-focused model of healthcare that offers benefits for a hospital of the future.

Objective Large-scale, multisite hospital improvement initiatives can advance high-quality care for patients. Implementation support is key to adoption of change in this context. Strategies that foster collaboration within local teams, across sites and between initiative developers and users are important. However not all implementation strategies are successful in all settings, sometimes realising poor or unintended outcomes. Our objective here is to develop guiding principles for effective collaborative implementation strategies for multi-site hospital initiatives.Design Mixed-method realist evaluation. Realist studies aim to examine the underlying theories that explain differing outcomes, identifying mechanisms and contextual factors that may trigger them.Setting We report on collaborative strategies used in four multi-site initiatives conducted in all public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia (n>100).Participants Using an iterative process, information was gathered on collaborative implementation strategies used, then initial programme theories hypothesised to underlie the strategies’ outcomes were surfaced using a realist dialogic approach. A realist interview schedule was developed to elicit evidence for the posited initial programme theories. Fourteen participants from 20 key informants invited participated. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed and analysed. From these data, guiding principles of fostering collaboration were developed.Results Six guiding principles were distilled: (1) structure opportunities for collaboration across sites; (2) facilitate meetings to foster learning and problem-solving across sites; (3) broker useful long-term relationships; (4) enable support agencies to assist implementers by giving legitimacy to their efforts in the eyes of senior management; (5) consider investment in collaboration as effective well beyond the current projects; (6) promote a shared vision and build momentum for change by ensuring inclusive networks where everyone has a voice.Conclusion Structuring and supporting collaboration in large-scale initiatives is a powerful implementation strategy if contexts described in the guiding principles are present.

Objective To undertake a synthesis of evidence-based research for seven innovative models of care to inform the development of new hospitals.Design Umbrella review.Setting Interventions delivered inside and outside of acute care settings.Participants Children and adults with one or more identified acute or chronic health conditions.Data sources PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL.Primary and secondary outcome measures Clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, self-management and self-care and patient knowledge.Results A total of 66 reviews were included, synthesising evidence from 1272 primary studies across the 7 models of care. Virtual care was the most common model studied, addressed by 47 (73%) of the reviews. Common outcomes evaluated across reviews were clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, self-care and self-management, patient knowledge, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that the innovative models of healthcare we identified in this review may be effective in managing patients with a range of acute and chronic conditions. Most of the included reviews reported evidence of comparable or improved care.Conclusions A consideration of local infrastructure and individual patient characteristics, such as health literacy, may be critical in determining the suitability of models of care for patients and their implementation in local health systems.Trial registration number 10.17605/OSF.IO/PS6ZU.

Realist evaluation is a method increasingly adopted to provide an understanding of how and why a program works, for whom, and under what circumstances. Initial program theories (IPT) are the crucial starting point of any realist evaluation, however descriptions about how they are developed in practice remain under-reported in the published literature. This article argues for the value of genuine research-group conversations using David Bohm’s concept of dialogue in realist research. We label it the realist dialogic approach. We draw out the relational qualities as well as the contextual circumstances of dialogue through our development of IPT and interview guides for a research study on the implementation and scaling of a large-system value-based program to transform complex health services. We selected the relevant middle-range theories, conducted a literature review, and drew on informal discussions with key stakeholders, to develop IPT through research-group conversations. The benefits of this approach were: 1) development of rigorous, novel, deep and well-tailored IPT, 2) detailed understanding of the complex intervention under investigation and development of rapport and networks with participants, 3) empirically grounded Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations, predicated on suitable abstract and contextually-contingent middle-range theories, and 4) productive research team interactions which supported the entire research process. The challenges of this approach include: 1) establishing and retaining a sense of humility across the research team, 2) contextual circumstances can hinder dialogic relationship, and 3) time and resource heavy. This paper uses middle-range theory and ethnographic insights to advance the existing practice of realist evaluations and offer transferable lessons to other scholars considering similar approaches. Moreover, we content that the use of middle-range theory to extend the methodological literature is a novel contribution to realist work.

Abstract Background Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human ‘subjectivity’. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes. Methods A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items. Results Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained. Conclusions Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

Abstract Background Studies of clinical effectiveness have demonstrated the many benefits of programmes that avoid unnecessary hospitalisations. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the factors influencing implementation of these programmes to ensure these benefits are realised across different healthcare contexts and settings. Numerous factors may act as determinants of implementation success or failure (facilitators and barriers), by either obstructing or enabling changes in healthcare delivery. Understanding the relationships between these determinants is needed to design and tailor strategies that integrate effective programmes into routine practice. Our aims were to describe the implementation determinants for hospital avoidance programmes for people with chronic conditions and the relationships between these determinants. Methods An electronic search of four databases was conducted from inception to October 2019, supplemented by snowballing for additional articles. Data were extracted using a structured data extraction tool and risk of bias assessed using the Hawker Tool. Thematic synthesis was undertaken to identify determinants of implementation success or failure for hospital avoidance programmes for people with chronic conditions, which were categorised according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The relationships between these determinants were also mapped. Results The initial search returned 3537 articles after duplicates were removed. After title and abstract screening, 123 articles underwent full-text review. Thirteen articles (14 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Thematic synthesis yielded 23 determinants of implementation across the five CFIR domains. ‘Availability of resources’, ‘compatibility and fit’, and ‘engagement of interprofessional team’ emerged as the most prominent determinants across the included studies. The most interconnected implementation determinants were the ‘compatibility and fit’ of interventions and ‘leadership influence’ factors. Conclusions Evidence is emerging for how chronic condition hospital avoidance programmes can be successfully implemented and scaled across different settings and contexts. This review provides a summary of key implementation determinants and their relationships. We propose a hypothesised causal loop diagram to represent the relationship between determinants within a complex adaptive system. Trial registration PROSPERO 162812

Introduction Value-based healthcare delivery models have emerged to address the unprecedented pressure on long-term health system performance and sustainability and to respond to the changing needs and expectations of patients. Implementing and scaling the benefits from these care delivery models to achieve large-system transformation are challenging and require consideration of complexity and context. Realist studies enable researchers to explore factors beyond ‘what works’ towards more nuanced understanding of ‘what tends to work for whom under which circumstances’. This research proposes a realist study of the implementation approach for seven large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia, to elucidate how different implementation strategies and processes stimulate the uptake, adoption, fidelity and adherence of initiatives to achieve sustainable impacts across a variety of contexts.Methods and analysis This exploratory, sequential, mixed methods realist study followed RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) reporting standards for realist studies. Stage 1 will formulate initial programme theories from review of existing literature, analysis of programme documents and qualitative interviews with programme designers, implementation support staff and evaluators. Stage 2 envisages testing and refining these hypothesised programme theories through qualitative interviews with local hospital network staff running initiatives, and analyses of quantitative data from the programme evaluation, hospital administrative systems and an implementation outcome survey. Stage 3 proposes to produce generalisable middle-range theories by synthesising data from context–mechanism–outcome configurations across initiatives. Qualitative data will be analysed retroductively and quantitative data will be analysed to identify relationships between the implementation strategies and processes, and implementation and programme outcomes. Mixed methods triangulation will be performed.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by Macquarie University (Project ID 23816) and Hunter New England (Project ID 2020/ETH02186) Human Research Ethics Committees. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be fed back to partner organisations and roundtable discussions with other health jurisdictions will be held, to share learnings.