Search

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) strategic documents are viewed as an essential feature of organisational commitment to openness and transparency. They provide a mechanism to communicate opportunities for wider community influence in healthcare. The absence of documentation can be negatively interpreted, for example during regulatory inspection, as a lack of intent by organisations to collaborate with a broad constituency. Published literature paints a confusing picture of rationale and evidence that could provide the foundation for strategic action. This makes it difficult for those responsible for turning goals into meaningful involvement. We investigated how content is presented and organised in strategic documents. This pragmatic study is intended to stimulate reflective practice, promote debate and generate further inquiry with a wide audience. Methods We created and iterated a framework adapted from 4Pi National Involvement Standards to analyse organisational PPI strategic documents against five domains which are principles, purpose, presence, process and impact. Fifteen strategic documents were grouped into four categories (acute care providers; clinical commissioning groups; community healthcare providers; and other) and included for analysis. A matrix was produced. By reading the matrix vertically (down) and horizontally (across), comparisons can be made between 4Pi domains and across organisations. Results There was no discernible pattern between domains or between organisations. There was variation in the level to which criteria were met. No single strategy fully met the criteria for all five domains of 4Pi National Involvement Standards. The criteria for purpose was fully met in eight strategic documents. Only two documents fully met impact criteria. Four organisations showed better completeness with fully or partially met criteria across five domains. A single organisation partially met the criteria for all domains. The remaining 10 were unable to meet the criteria in at least one domain. Conclusion Our findings align with published literature that suggests the underpinning rationale for PPI is confusing. A strategic aim is difficult to articulate. Context and complexity are at play making the sharing of generalisable knowledge elusive. We offer further critique about the value of these documents and consider: ‘is there an alternative approach to construct PPI strategy to generate theory, capture learning and evaluate effectiveness at the same time?’ We suggest testing the adoption of programme theory in PPI. The emergent nature and context sensitive features of programme theory enable curiosity, creativity and critical appraisal. It has the potential to release practitioners from the tokenistic cycle of monitoring and reporting and replace this with a richer understanding of ‘what’ works and ‘how’ tied to a ‘why’ – in order to achieve a shared aim that everyone can get behind.

Background Patients are increasingly recognized as playing important roles in improving health services. Little is known about the mechanisms by which patients develop and diffuse local innovations in a complex health-care system. Objective To ascertain how diffusion of an innovation, My Medication Passport, occurred and roles played by patients in it. Design Case study: quantitative mapping of innovation's diffusion and analysis of the routes and occupations of those through whom the innovation spread; documentary analysis; reflective assessment of patient's roles. Setting and participants NHS Trusts, third sector organizations, patients and health-care professionals. Interventions studied Co-produced action to raise awareness and influence use of the innovation; order database which enabled ease of access to the innovation. Main outcome measures Geographical spread of innovation; occupations of individuals; types of organizations using the innovation. Results The innovation spread from initial development and use in Northwest London across the UK and beyond. Key roles played by patients were as follows: co-producer; advocate; relationship builder; relationship broker; planner; presenter; awareness raiser; trainer; networker. Patients identified and introduced potential audiences and users to MMP, using social, organizational, sectoral, lay and professional networks to do so. They organized a range of awareness-raising and communication activities, monitored feedback, evaluated the impact and responded to new interest. Discussion and conclusions The roles of patients in diffusing innovations are under-recognized. Collaborative working between patients, carers and health-care professionals in planning and progressing the use and supporting diffusion of the innovation was important. Principles described in this study are relevant to progressing other patient-led ideas for innovative changes relating to health service development.

BackgroundAdvancing the description and conceptualisation of interventions in complex systems is necessary to support spread, evaluation, attribution and reproducibility. Improvement teams can provide unique insight into how interventions are operationalised in practice. Capturing this ‘insider knowledge’ has the potential to enhance intervention descriptions.ObjectivesThis exploratory study investigated the spread of a comprehensive medication review (CMR) intervention to (1) describe the work required from the improvement team perspective, (2) identify what stays the same and what changes between the different sites and why, and (3) critically appraise the ‘hard core’ and ‘soft periphery’ (HC/SP) construct as a way of conceptualising interventions.DesignA prospective case study of a CMR initiative across five sites. Data collection included: observations, document analysis and semistructured interviews. A facilitated workshop triangulated findings and measured perceived effort invested in activities. A qualitative database was developed to conduct thematic analysis.ResultsSites identified 16 intervention components. All were considered essential due to their interdependency. The function of components remained the same, but adaptations were made between and within sites. Components were categorised under four ‘spheres of operation’: Accessibility of evidence base; Process of enactment; Dependent processes and Dependent sociocultural issues. Participants reported most effort was invested on ‘dependent sociocultural issues’. None of the existing HC/SP definitions fit well with the empirical data, with inconsistent classifications of components as HC or SP.ConclusionsThis study advances the conceptualisation of interventions by explicitly considering how evidence-based practices are operationalised in complex systems. We propose a new conceptualisation of ‘interventions-in-systems’ which describes intervention components in relation to their: proximity to the evidence base; component interdependence; component function; component adaptation and effort.

Introduction Process mapping (PM) supports better understanding of complex systems and adaptation of improvement interventions to their local context. However, there is little research on its use in healthcare. This study (i) proposes a conceptual framework outlining quality criteria to guide the effective implementation, evaluation and reporting of PM in healthcare; (ii) reviews published PM cases to identify context and quality of PM application, and the reported benefits of using PM in healthcare. Methods We developed the conceptual framework by reviewing methodological guidance on PM and empirical literature on its use in healthcare improvement interventions. We conducted a systematic review of empirical literature using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Inclusion criteria were: full text empirical study; describing the process through which PM has been applied in a healthcare setting; published in English. Databases searched are: Medline, Embase, HMIC–Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL-Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus. Two independent reviewers extracted and analysed data. Each manuscript underwent line by line coding. The conceptual framework was used to evaluate adherence of empirical studies to the identified PM quality criteria. Context in which PM is used and benefits of using PM were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results The framework outlines quality criteria for each PM phase: (i) preparation, planning and process identification, (ii) data and information gathering, (iii) process map generation, (iv) analysis, (v) taking it forward. PM is used in a variety of settings and approaches to improvement. None of the reviewed studies (N = 105) met all ten quality criteria; 7% were compliant with 8/10 or 9/10 criteria. 45% of studies reported that PM was generated through multi-professional meetings and 15% reported patient involvement. Studies highlighted the value of PM in navigating the complexity characterising healthcare improvement interventions. Conclusion The full potential of PM is inhibited by variance in reporting and poor adherence to underpinning principles. Greater rigour in the application of the method is required. We encourage the use and further development of the proposed framework to support training, application and reporting of PM. Trial Registration Prospero ID: CRD42017082140

Research on organizational interventions needs to meet the objectives of both researchers and participating organizations. This duality means that real-world impact has to be considered throughout the research process, simultaneously addressing both scientific rigour and practical relevance. This discussion paper aims to offer a set of principles, grounded in knowledge from various disciplines that can guide researchers in designing, implementing, and evaluating organizational interventions. Inspired by Mode 2 knowledge production, the principles were developed through a transdisciplinary, participatory and iterative process where practitioners and academics were invited to develop, refine and validate the principles. The process resulted in 10 principles: 1) Ensure active engagement and participation among key stakeholders; 2) Understand the situation (starting points and objectives); 3) Align the intervention with existing organizational objectives; 4) Explicate the program logic; 5) Prioritize intervention activities based on effort-gain balance; 6) Work with existing practices, processes, and mindsets; 7) Iteratively observe, reflect, and adapt; 8) Develop organizational learning capabilities; 9) Evaluate the interaction between intervention, process, and context; and 10) Transfer knowledge beyond the specific organization. The principles suggest how the design, implementation, and evaluation of organizational interventions can be researched in a way that maximizes both practical and scientific impact.

Background Numerous models, tools and frameworks have been produced to improve the sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Due to the vast number available, choosing the most appropriate one is increasingly difficult for researchers and practitioners. To understand the value of such approaches, evidence warranting their use is needed. However, there is limited understanding of how sustainability approaches have been used and how they have impacted research or practice. This review aims to consolidate evidence on the application and impact of sustainability approaches in healthcare settings. Methods A systematic scoping review was designed to search for peer-reviewed publications detailing the use of sustainability approaches in practice. A 5-stage framework for scoping reviews directed the search strategy, and quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Searches were performed through electronic citation tracking and snowballing of references. Articles were obtained through Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Six outcome variables for sustainability were explored to ascertain impact of approaches. Results This review includes 68 articles demonstrating the application of sustainability approaches in practice. Results show an increase in the use of sustainability approaches in peer-reviewed studies. Approaches have been applied across a range of healthcare settings, including primary, secondary, tertiary and community healthcare. Approaches are used for five main purposes, namely analysis, evaluation, guidance, assessment and planning. Results outline benefits (e.g. improved conceptualisation of sustainability constructs and improved ability to interpret sustainability data) and challenges (e.g. issues with approach constructs and difficulty in application) associated with using a sustainability approach in practice. Few articles (14/68) reported the sustainability outcome variables explored; therefore, the impact of approaches on sustainability remains unclear. Additional sustainability outcome variables reported in retrieved articles are discussed. Conclusions This review provides practitioners and researchers with a consolidated evidence base on sustainability approaches. Findings highlight the remaining gaps in the literature and emphasise the need for improved rigour and reporting of sustainability approaches in research studies. To guide future assessment and study of sustainability in healthcare settings an updated list of sustainability outcome variables is proposed. Trial Registration This review was registered on the PROSPERO database CRD 42016040081 in June 2016.

Objectives To improve the provision of health care, academics can be asked to collaborate with clinicians, and clinicians with patients. Generating good evidence on health care practice depends on these collaborations working well. Yet such relationships are not the norm. We examine how social science research and health care improvement practice were linked through a programme designed to broker collaborations between clinicians, academics, and patients to improve health care – the UK National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London. We discuss the successes and challenges of the collaboration and make suggestions on how to develop synergistic relationships that facilitate co-production of social science knowledge and its translation into practice. Methods A qualitative approach was used, including ethnographic elements and critical, reflexive dialogue between members of the two collaborating teams. Results Key challenges and remedies were connected with the risks associated with new ways of working. These risks included differing ideas between collaborators about the purpose, value, and expectations of research, and institutional opposition. Dialogue between collaborators did not mean absence of tensions or clashes. Risk-taking was unpopular – institutions, funders, and partners did not always support it, despite simultaneously demanding ‘innovation’ in producing research that influenced practice. Conclusions Our path was made smoother because we had funding to support the creation of a ‘potential space’ to experiment with different ways of working. Other factors that can enhance collaboration include a shared commitment to dialogical practice, a recognition of the legitimacy of different partners’ knowledge, a long timeframe to identify and resolve problems, the maintenance of an enabling environment for collaboration, a willingness to work iteratively and reflexively, and a shared end goal.

Background Healthcare teams often consist of geographically dispersed members. Virtual worlds can support immersive, high-quality, multimedia interaction between remote individuals; this study investigated use of virtual worlds to support remote healthcare quality improvement team meetings. Methods Twenty individuals (12 female, aged 25–67 [M = 42.3, SD = 11.8]) from 6 healthcare quality improvement teams conducted collaborative tasks in virtual world or face-to-face settings. Quality of collaborative task performances were measured and questionnaires and interviews were used to record participants’ experiences of conducting the tasks and using the virtual world software. Results Quality of collaborative task outcomes was high in both face-to-face and virtual world settings. Participant interviews elicited advantages for using virtual worlds in healthcare settings, including the ability of the virtual environment to support tools that cannot be represented in equivalent face-to-face meetings, and the potential for virtual world settings to cause improvements in group-dynamics. Reported disadvantages for future virtual world use in healthcare included the difficulty that people with weaker computer skills may experience with using the software. Participants tended to feel absorbed in the collaborative task they conducted within the virtual world, but did not experience the virtual environment as being ‘real’. Conclusions Virtual worlds can provide an effective platform for collaborative meetings in healthcare quality improvement, but provision of support to those with weaker computer skills should be ensured, as should the technical reliability of the virtual world being used. Future research could investigate use of virtual worlds in other healthcare settings.

Background Descriptive studies examining publication rates and citation counts demonstrate a geographic skew toward high-income countries (HIC), and research from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) is generally underrepresented. This has been suggested to be due in part to reviewers’ and editors’ preference toward HIC sources; however, in the absence of controlled studies, it is impossible to assert whether there is bias or whether variations in the quality or relevance of the articles being reviewed explains the geographic divide. This study synthesizes the evidence from randomized and controlled studies that explore geographic bias in the peer review process. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify research studies that explicitly explore the role of geographic bias in the assessment of the quality of research articles. Only randomized and controlled studies were included in the review. Five databases were searched to locate relevant articles. A narrative synthesis of included articles was performed to identify common findings. Results The systematic literature search yielded 3501 titles from which 12 full texts were reviewed, and a further eight were identified through searching reference lists of the full texts. Of these articles, only three were randomized and controlled studies that examined variants of geographic bias. One study found that abstracts attributed to HIC sources elicited a higher review score regarding relevance of the research and likelihood to recommend the research to a colleague, than did abstracts attributed to LIC sources. Another study found that the predicted odds of acceptance for a submission to a computer science conference were statistically significantly higher for submissions from a “Top University.” Two of the studies showed the presence of geographic bias between articles from “high” or “low” prestige institutions. Conclusions Two of the three included studies identified that geographic bias in some form was impacting on peer review; however, further robust, experimental evidence is needed to adequately inform practice surrounding this topic. Reviewers and researchers should nonetheless be aware of whether author and institutional characteristics are interfering in their judgement of research.

French, Reed and Lennox analyse how bottom-up, facilitated quality improvement (QI) approaches using boundary objects can transform knowledge from different domains and support improved practice. Using two QI tools (the Action Effect Method and Long Term Success Tool) as tracer cases, their empirical study draws on 17 quality improvement initiatives in Northwest London, UK to explore micro-level processes of QI using a knowledge boundary framework. The chapter demonstrates how co-creation and adaptation of boundary objects can develop boundary capabilities in healthcare teams and facilitate improvements to care. The authors show how clinicians do not accept QI tools uncritically: rather those tools that are likely to enact improvement work are adapted by professionals to local contexts and preferences in line with professional knowledge jurisdictions.

Many promising improvement initiatives, that traverse the theory-practice boundary, fail to sustain themselves and produce long-term benefits. To analyse and influence the sustainability of initiatives, various tools have been developed. There is little evidence on whether these tools influence initiative processes or outcomes. This chapter describes the processes by which improvement teams influence sustainability, via a case study of the use of The Long Term Success Tool (LTST). Findings offer insight into how prospective sustainability planning allows teams to maintain focus and mitigate risks to enhance chances of achieving lasting success. This chapter provides valuable learning on how tools such as the LTST can provide a useful approach to understand diverse perspectives, direct attention to areas for improvement and prompt actions to enhance sustainability.

Introduction Process mapping provides insight into systems and processes in which improvement interventions are introduced and is seen as useful in healthcare quality improvement projects. There is little empirical evidence on the use of process mapping in healthcare practice. This study advances understanding of the benefits and success factors of process mapping within quality improvement projects. Methods Eight quality improvement projects were purposively selected from different healthcare settings within the UK’s National Health Service. Data were gathered from multiple data-sources, including interviews exploring participants’ experience of using process mapping in their projects and perceptions of benefits and challenges related to its use. These were analysed using inductive analysis. Results Eight key benefits related to process mapping use were reported by participants (gathering a shared understanding of the reality; identifying improvement opportunities; engaging stakeholders in the project; defining project's objectives; monitoring project progress; learning; increased empathy; simplicity of the method) and five factors related to successful process mapping exercises (simple and appropriate visual representation, information gathered from multiple stakeholders, facilitator’s experience and soft skills, basic training, iterative use of process mapping throughout the project). Conclusions Findings highlight benefits and versatility of process mapping and provide practical suggestions to improve its use in practice.

There is evidence that practitioners applying quality improvements often adapt the improvement method or the change they are implementing, either unknowingly, or intentionally to fit their service or situation. This has been observed especially in programs seeking to spread or ‘scale up’ an improvement change to other services. Sometimes their adaptations result in improved outcomes, sometimes they do not, and sometimes they do not have data make this assessment or to describe the adaptation. The purpose of this paper is to summarize key points about adaptation and context discussed at the Salzburg Global Seminar in order to help improvers judge when and how to adapt an improvement change. It aims also to encourage more research into such adaptations to develop our understanding of the when, why and how of effective adaptation and to provide more research informed guidance to improvers. The paper gives examples to illustrate key issues in adaptation and to consider more systematic and purposeful adaptation of improvements so as to increase the chances of achieving improvements in different settings for different participants. We describe methods for assessing whether adaptation is necessary or likely to reduce the effectiveness of an improvement intervention, which adaptations might be required, and methods for collecting data to assess whether the adaptations are successful. We also note areas where research is most needed in order to enable more effective scale up of quality improvements changes and wider take up and use of the methods.

Background Frail individuals are at risk of significant clinical deterioration if their frailty is not identified and managed appropriately. Research suggests that any interaction between an older person and a health or social care professional should include an assessment for frailty. Many older care home residents are frail when admitted, but we have little knowledge of whether or how this is assessed. The aim of this paper is to understand and establish the characteristics of the reported ‘assessments for frailty’ used in care homes with nursing (nursing homes) across North-West London. This will help understand what an ‘assessment for frailty’ of care home residents mean in practice in North-West London. Methods Telephone contact was made with every Care Quality Commission (CQC) (independent regulator of health and adult social care in England) regulated nursing home across North-West London [n = 87]. An online survey was sent to all that expressed interest [n = 73]. The survey was developed through conversations with healthcare professionals, based on literature and tested with academics and clinicians. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analyses. Results 24/73 nursing homes completed the survey (33%). Differences in the characteristics of reported ‘assessments for frailty’ across nursing homes were evident. Variation in high level domains assessed (physical, social, mental and environmental) was observed. Nurses were the most common professional group completing assessments for frailty, with documentation and storage being predominantly paper based. A statistically significant difference between the number of assessments used in corporate chain owned nursing homes (3.9) versus independently owned nursing homes (2.1) was observed (U = 21, p = .005). Conclusions Great variation existed in the characteristics of reported ‘assessments for frailty’ in nursing homes. Our study suggests that not all physical, social, mental and environmental domains of frailty are routinely assessed: it appears that frailty is still primarily viewed only in terms of physical health. The consequences of this could be severe for patients, staff and healthcare settings. Research illustrates that frailty is a broad, multifactorial health state and, as such, an overall ‘assessment for frailty’ should reflect this. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1083-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAlthough widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use, and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by front-line teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use. Data collected from 39 front-line improvement teams provided an opportunity to retrospectively investigate PDSA cycle use and how strategies were modified to help improve this over time.MethodsThe fidelity of 421 PDSA cycles was reviewed using a predefined framework and statistical analysis examined whether fidelity changed over three annual rounds of projects. The experiences of project teams and QI support staff were investigated through document analysis and interviews.ResultsAlthough modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred; however, overall fidelity remained low. Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice. These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand; that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA; and that PDSA is easy to apply. QI strategies that evolved to overcome these challenges included project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support and investment in training QI support staff.ConclusionThis study identifies support strategies that may help improve PDSA cycle fidelity. It provides an approach to assess minimum standards of fidelity which can be replicated elsewhere. The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working.

© The Author 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. Background: checklists are increasingly proposed as a means to enhance safety and quality of care. However, their use has been met with variable levels of success. The Frailsafe project focused on introducing a checklist with the aim to increase completion of key clinical assessments and to facilitate communication for the care of older patients in acute admissions. Objectives: to examine the use of the Frailsafe checklist, including potential to contribute to improved safety, quality and reliability of care. Methods: 110 qualitative interviews and group discussions with healthcare professionals and other specialties, 172 h of ethnographic observation in 12 UK hospitals and reporting of high-level process data (completion of checklist and relevant frailty assessments). Qualitative analysis followed a thematic and theory-driven approach. Results: through use of the checklist, hospital teams identified limitations in their existing assessments (e.g. absence of delirium protocols) and practices (e.g. unnecessary catheter use). This contributed to hospitals reporting just 24.0% of sampled patients as having received all clinical assessments across key domains for this population for the duration of the project (1,687/7,021 checklists as fully completed). Staffperceptions and experiences of using the checklist varied significantly, primarily driven by the extent to which the aims of this quality improvement project aligned with local service priorities and pre-existing team communications styles. Conclusions: the Frailsafe checklist highlighted limitations with frailty assessment in acute care and motivated teams to review routine practices. Further work is needed to understand whether and how checklists can be embedded in complex, multidisciplinary care.

Purpose An increasing number of implementation and improvement frameworks seek to describe and explain how change is made in healthcare. This paper aims to explore how existing frameworks conceptualize the influence of complexity in translating evidence into practice in healthcare. Data sources A database was interrogated using a search strategy to identify publications that present frameworks and models for implementation and improvement. Study selection Ten popular implementation and improvement frameworks were purposively selected. Data extraction Comparative analysis was conducted using an analytical framework derived from SHIFT-Evidence, a framework that conceptualizes complexity in implementation and improvement initiatives. Results Collectively the frameworks accounted for key concepts of translating evidence in complex systems: understanding the uniqueness of each setting; the interdependency of practices/processes and the need to respond to unpredictable events and emergent learning. The analysis highlighted heterogeneity of the frameworks in their focus on different aspects of complexity. Differences include the extent to which problems and solutions are investigated or assumed; whether endpoints are defined as the uptake of interventions or achievement of goals; and emphasis placed on fixed-term interventions versus continual improvement. None of the individual frameworks reviewed incorporated all the implications of complexity, as described by SHIFT-Evidence. Conclusion This research identifies the differences in how implementation and improvement frameworks consider complexity, suggesting that SHIFT-Evidence offers a more comprehensive overview compared with the other frameworks. The similarity of concepts across the frameworks suggests growing consensus in the literature, with SHIFT-Evidence providing a conceptual bridge between the implementation and improvement fields.

Background Despite criticisms that many quality improvement (QI) initiatives fail due to incomplete programme theory, there is no defined way to evaluate how programme theory has been articulated. The objective of this research was to develop, and assess the usability and reliability of scoring criteria to evaluate programme theory diagrams. Methods Criteria development was informed by published literature and QI experts. Inter-rater reliability was tested between two evaluators. About 63 programme theory diagrams (42 driver diagrams and 21 action–effect diagrams) were reviewed to establish whether the criteria could support comparative analysis of different approaches to constructing diagrams. Results Components of the scoring criteria include: assessment of overall aim, logical overview, clarity of components, cause–effect relationships, evidence and measurement. Independent reviewers had 78% inter-rater reliability. Scoring enabled direct comparison of different approaches to developing programme theory; action–effect diagrams were found to have had a statistically significant but moderate improvement in programme theory quality over driver diagrams; no significant differences were observed based on the setting in which driver diagrams were developed. Conclusions The scoring criteria summarise the necessary components of programme theory that are thought to contribute to successful QI projects. The viability of the scoring criteria for practical application was demonstrated. Future uses include assessment of individual programme theory diagrams and comparison of different approaches (e.g. methodological, teaching or other QI support) to produce programme theory. The criteria can be used as a tool to guide the production of better programme theory diagrams, and also highlights where additional support for QI teams could be needed.

Background Evidence translation and improvement research indicates that healthcare contexts are complex systems, characterised by uncertainty and surprise, which often defy orchestrated intervention attempts. This research aims to advance understanding of the implication of complexity on attempts to translate evidence, and to produce a comprehensive, practically relevant and actionable conceptual framework. Methods A UK based research programme (NIHR CLAHRC NWL) was studied over a 5 year period using an ethnographic approach. Learning was assimilated from observations and documentary analysis of 22 evidence translation projects, and extensive literature review. Data was analysed using a grounded theory approach to develop a conceptual framework and identify “simple rules”. Results The framework for Successful Healthcare Improvement From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence) positions the challenge of evidence translation within the complex and evolving context of healthcare, and recognises the wider issues practitioners routinely face. SHIFTevidence is summarised by three principles designed to be intuitive and memorable: act scientifically and pragmatically; embrace complexity; and engage and empower. Common challenges and strategies to overcome them are summarised in 12 “simple rules” that provide actionable guidance. Conclusion SHIFT-Evidence provides a practical tool to guide practice and research of evidence translation and improvement within complex dynamic healthcare settings: improvement initiatives and research study designs need to take into account the unique initial conditions in each local setting; conduct needs to respond to unpredictable effects and address dependent problems; and evaluation needs to be sensitive to evolving priorities and the emergent range of activities required to achieve improvement.

During the Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement, participants discussed the need to unpack the black box of improvement. The black box refers to the fact that when quality improvement interventions are described or evaluated, there is a tendency to assume a simple, linear path between the intervention and the outcomes it yields. It is also assumed that it is enough to evaluate the results without understanding the process of by which the improvement took place. However, quality improvement interventions are complex, nonlinear and evolve in response to local settings. To accurately assess the effectiveness of quality improvement and disseminate the learning, there must be a greater understanding of the complexity of quality improvement work. To remain consistent with the language used in Salzburg, we refer to this as unpacking the black box of improvement. To illustrate the complexity of improvement, this article introduces four quality improvement case studies. In unpacking the black box, we present and demonstrate how Cynefin framework from complexity theory can be used to categorize and evaluate quality improvement interventions. Many quality improvement projects are implemented in complex contexts, necessitating an approach defined as probesense- respond. In this approach, teams experiment, learn and adapt their changes to their local setting. Quality improvement professionals intuitively use the probe-sense-respond approach in their work but document and evaluate their projects using language for simple or complicated' contexts, rather than the complex contexts in which they work. As a result, evaluations tend to ask 'How can we attribute outcomes to the intervention, rather than 'What were the adaptations that took place. By unpacking the black box of improvement, improvers can more accurately document and describe their interventions, allowing evaluators to ask the right questions and more adequately evaluate quality improvement interventions. Fil: Ramaswamy, Rohit. University of North Carolina; Estados Unidos Fil: Reed, Julie. Nihr Clarch Northwest London; Estados Unidos Fil: Livesley, Nigel. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; Estados Unidos Fil: Boguslavsky, Victor. University Research Co; Estados Unidos Fil: Garcia Elorrio, Ezequiel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Sax, Sylvia. University of Heidelberg; Alemania Fil: Houleymata, Diarra. Applying Science to Strengthen and Improve Systems Project,; Malí Fil: Kimble, Leighann. University Research Co; Estados Unidos Fil: Parry, Gareth. Institute of Healthcare Improvement; Estados Unidos

Quality improvement and implementation (QI&I) initiatives face critical challenges in an era of evidence-based, value-driven patient care. Whether front-line staff, large organisations or government bodies design and run QI&I, there is increasing need to demonstrate impact to justify investment of time and resources in implementing and scaling up an intervention. Decisions about sustaining, scaling up and spreading an initiative can be informed by evidence of causation and the estimated attributable effect of an intervention on observed outcomes. Achieving this in healthcare can be challenging, where interventions often are multimodal and applied in complex systems.1 Where there is weak evidence of causation, credibility in the effectiveness of the intervention is reduced with a resultant reduced desire to replicate. The greater confidence of a causal relationship between QI&I interventions and observed results, the greater our confidence that improvement will result when the intervention occurs in different settings. Guidance exists for design, conduct, evaluation and reporting of QII2–4; the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) and the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (STARI) guidelines were developed specifically for reporting QI&I initiatives.5 6 However, much of this guidance is targeted at larger formal evaluations, and may require levels of resource or expertise not available to all QI&I initiatives. This paper proposes QI&I initiatives, regardless of scope and resources, can be enhanced by applying epidemiological principles, adapted from those promulgated by Austin Bradford Hill.7 Hill proposed nine ‘aspects of association’ that could be considered before ‘… deciding that the most likely interpretation is causation ’.7 His objective was to improve the ability to form scientific judgements about causality. The nine aspects, subsequently referred to as the ‘Bradford Hill Criteria’ (BHC), are considered in the following sections. With roots in causes of disease, the BHC have natural alignment with healthcare. …

Background: Academics are asked to collaborate with clinicians and clinicians with patients; getting evidence into practice depends on these collaborations working well. Yet such relationships are not the norm. In this paper, we reflect on our real-life experience of linking qualitative research and clinical practice in the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL) – an ambitious project funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research to support collaborations between clinicians, academics, and patients to improve healthcare. We discuss successes and challenges both of doing qualitative research in this context and ways of becoming partners. Methods: Critical, reflexive dialogues to identify different perspectives about what works well and what brings challenges. Findings: Key challenges and opportunities were connected with the risks associated with new ways of working; differing ideas about purpose, value, and expectations from research; institutional opposition; clashing research paces, language and knowledge backgrounds, particularly relating to impact evaluation and rapid feedback needed to change practice versus broader theory development and ethnography; time needed to develop a shared understanding of the work. Our path was made smoother by shared commitment to dialogical practice and recognition of legitimacy of different partners9 knowledge; a long time frame with corresponding resources to identify and resolve issues and create an enabling space for collaboration; preparedness to work iteratively and reflexively; and shared end goal to collaborate and use participatory approaches to strengthen research and improve healthcare. aThis work originates from independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) programme for North West London. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Patient and public involvement is fundamental in healthcare and many methods attempt to facilitate this engagement. The present study investigated use of computer-generated environments known as 'virtual worlds' (VW) as an involvement method. The VW used in the present research was Second Life, which is 3-dimensional, publically accessible and internet-based. It is accessed using digital self-representations, or 'avatars', through which users navigate the virtual environment and communicate with one another. Participants were patients with long-term conditions, frequently involved in shaping health research and care. Some had mobility and communication difficulties, potentially making involvement through traditional face-to-face modes of engagement challenging. There were 2 stages to this study. Stage-1: Participants were introduced to VWs and Second Life. This was followed by a face-to-face focus group discussion (FGD) in order to gain their views on use of SL. Stage-2: An FGD attended by 8 people (4 patients, 3 researchers, 1 healthcare professional) was conducted in Second Life. Training and support on using Second Life had been provided for participants. The FGD took place successfully, although some technical and communication difficulties were experienced. Data was collected in the form of interviews and questionnaires from the patients about their experience of using the virtual world. Participants recognised the potential of VWs as a platform for patient engagement, especially for those who suffer from chronic conditions that impact severely upon their mobility and communication. Participant feedback indicated that potential barriers include technical problems with VW programs and potential user inexperience of using VWs, which may be counteracted by ensuring provision of continuous training and support. In conclusion, this study established the feasibility of using VWs for patient FGDs and indicates a potential of use of VWs for engagement in future, particularly for peer-led support and to engage people with particular long-term conditions.

As an alternative to 'big bang' initiatives, plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles are an increasingly popular approach to conducting tests of change to support quality improvement in healthcare. Using PDSA cycles can help clinicians deliver improvements in patient care through a structured experimental approach to learning and tests of change. The PDSA approach facilitates individual, team and organisational learning, making it an essential tool for the future hospital. This paper provides an example of the benefits of using PDSA in practice to test and develop a change idea to ensure it is fit for purpose. As with any new skill or competency, learning to use PDSA cycles takes time and practice and is necessary to ensure that the method is being used to its full effect. This paper explores some of the challenges encountered by clinicians in learning to use PDSA cycles well, and provides advice on how they can be overcome to help practitioners get more out of using the method.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.

Data obtained during the care of people with diabetes mellitus may be used to advance research, improve quality, encourage innovation and support better self-care. However, the perspective of people living with diabetes is less well understood. This study examines the views of people with diabetes regarding access to electronic health records (EHRs) for health care and research. Survey data from a sub-group of 404 individuals with diabetes were analysed from a dataset of 5331 West London participants randomly sampled in a cross-sectional survey. These findings were explored in more detail in a focus group discussion involving people with diabetes. Sixty-seven percent of people with diabetes would support the inclusion of their full records on a national EHR for purposes of personal health provision. The vast majority (91%) would prefer to have access to their own full medical history rather than a truncated version. Seventy-nine percent said they would allow their EHR to be used for research: 51% allowing their records to be shared without identifiers and 28% being supportive of access to their identifiable information. A number of themes emerged from the focus group discussion on integrated EHRs, including expectations for improved communication with health professionals, increased participation in the consultation process, responsibility for self-care and data sharing for the greater good. In conclusion, wider sharing of health information may address some of the challenges diabetes care entails, although striking a balance between information fragmentation and sharing remains crucial to improve health, research and quality outcomes. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons.

Quality improvement (QI) methods have been introduced to healthcare to support the delivery of care that is safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable and cost effective. Of the many QI tools and methods, the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is one of the few that focuses on the crux of change, the translation of ideas and intentions into action. As such, the PDSA cycle and the concept of iterative tests of change are central to many QI approaches, including the model for improvement,1 lean,2 six sigma3 and total quality management.4 PDSA provides a structured experimental learning approach to testing changes. Previously, concerns have been raised regarding the fidelity of application of PDSA method, which may undermine learning efforts,5 the complexity of its use in practice5 ,6 and as to the appropriateness of the PDSA method to address the significant challenges of healthcare improvement.7 This article presents our reflections on the full potential of using PDSA in healthcare, but in doing so we explore the inherent complexity and multiple challenges of executing PDSA well. Ultimately, we argue that the problem with PDSA is the oversimplification of the method as it has been translated into healthcare and the failure to invest in a rigorous and tailored application of the approach. The purpose of the PDSA method lies in learning as quickly as possible whether an intervention works in a particular setting and to making adjustments accordingly to increase the chances of delivering and sustaining the desired improvement. In contrast to controlled trials, PDSAs allow new learning to be built in to this experimental process. If problems are identified with the original plan, then the theory can be revised to build on this learning and a subsequent experiment conducted to see if it has resolved the problem, and …

Steroid sulphatase is a target enzyme of growing therapeutic importance. The synthesis and in vitro biological evaluation of three novel 2-substituted analogues of oestrone 3-O-sulphamate (EMATE), an established steroid sulphatase inhibitor, are described. One inhibitor, 2-difluoromethyloestrone 3-O-sulphamate (6), was found to have an IC50 of 100 pM and be some 90-fold more potent than EMATE in inhibiting steroid sulphatase activity in a placental microsomal preparation, rendering this agent the most potent steroidal STS inhibitor in vitro reported to date. Lowering of the pKa value of the leaving parent steroid phenol by the 2-difluoromethyl group during irreversible enzyme sulphamoylation most likely facilitates the potent inactivation of steroid sulphatase by (6). However, our preliminary molecular docking studies using the X-ray crystal structure of steroid sulphatase suggest that F⋯⋯H interactions between the 2-difluoromethyl group of (6) and hydrogen bond donor residues lining the catalytic site of STS might also contribute to the high potency observed for (6).

The identification and articulation of programme theory can support effective design, execution and evaluation of quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Programme theory includes an agreed aim, potential interventions to achieve this aim, anticipated cause/effect relationships between the interventions and the aim and measures to monitor improvement. This paper outlines the approach used in a research and improvement programme to support QI initiatives in identifying and articulating programme theory: the action effect method.Building on a previously used QI method, the driver diagram, the action effect method was developed using co-design and iteration over four annual rounds of improvement initiatives. This resulted in a specification of the elements required to fully articulate the programme theory of a QI initiative.The action effect method is a systematic and structured process to identify and articulate a QI initiative's programme theory. The method connects potential interventions and implementation activities with an overall improvement aim through a diagrammatic representation of hypothesised and evidenced cause/effect relationships. Measure concepts, in terms of service delivery and patient and system outcomes, are identified to support evaluation.The action effect method provides a framework to guide the execution and evaluation of a QI initiative, a focal point for other QI methods and a communication tool to engage stakeholders. A clear definition of what constitutes a well-articulated programme theory is provided to guide the use of the method and assessment of the fidelity of its application.

Plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles provide a structure for iterative testing of changes to improve quality of systems. The method is widely accepted in healthcare improvement; however there is little overarching evaluation of how the method is applied. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for assessing the quality of application of PDSA cycles and explores the consistency with which the method has been applied in peer-reviewed literature against this framework.NHS Evidence and Cochrane databases were searched by three independent reviewers. Empirical studies were included that reported application of the PDSA method in healthcare. Application of PDSA cycles was assessed against key features of the method, including documentation characteristics, use of iterative cycles, prediction-based testing of change, initial small-scale testing and use of data over time.73 of 409 individual articles identified met the inclusion criteria. Of the 73 articles, 47 documented PDSA cycles in sufficient detail for full analysis against the whole framework. Many of these studies reported application of the PDSA method that failed to accord with primary features of the method. Less than 20% (14/73) fully documented the application of a sequence of iterative cycles. Furthermore, a lack of adherence to the notion of small-scale change is apparent and only 15% (7/47) reported the use of quantitative data at monthly or more frequent data intervals to inform progression of cycles.To progress the development of the science of improvement, a greater understanding of the use of improvement methods, including PDSA, is essential to draw reliable conclusions about their effectiveness. This would be supported by the development of systematic and rigorous standards for the application and reporting of PDSAs.

BackgroundThe development and implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) remains an international challenge. Better understanding of patient and public attitudes and the factors that influence overall levels of support toward EHRs is needed to inform policy. ObjectiveTo explore patient and public attitudes toward integrated EHRs used simultaneously for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research. MethodsCross-sectional questionnaire survey administered to patients and members of the public who were recruited from a stratified cluster random sample of 8 outpatient clinics of a major teaching hospital and 8 general practices in London (United Kingdom). Results5331 patients and members of the public responded to the survey, with 2857 providing complete data for the analysis presented here. There were moderately high levels of support for integrated EHRs used simultaneously for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research (1785/2857, 62.47%), while 27.93% (798/2857) of participants reported being undecided about whether or not they would support EHR use. There were higher levels of support for specific uses of EHRs. Most participants were in favor of EHRs for personal health care provision (2563/2857, 89.71%), with 66.75% (1907/2857) stating that they would prefer their complete, rather than limited, medical history to be included. Of those “undecided” about integrated EHRs, 87.2% (696/798) were nevertheless in favor of sharing their full (373/798, 46.7%) or limited (323/798, 40.5%) records for health provision purposes. There were similar high levels of support for use of EHRs in health services policy and planning (2274/2857, 79.59%) and research (2325/2857, 81.38%), although 59.75% (1707/2857) and 67.10% (1917/2857) of respondents respectively would prefer their personal identifiers to be removed. Multivariable analysis showed levels of overall support for EHRs decreasing with age. Respondents self-identifying as Black British were more likely to report being undecided or unsupportive of national EHRs. Frequent health services users were more likely to report being supportive than undecided. ConclusionsDespite previous difficulties with National Health Service (NHS) technology projects, patients and the public generally support the development of integrated EHRs for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research. This support, however, varies between social groups and is not unqualified; relevant safeguards must be in place and patients should be guided in their decision-making process, including increased awareness about the benefits of EHRs for secondary uses.

Background Immediate access to patients’ complete health records via electronic databases could improve healthcare and facilitate health research. However, the possible benefits of a national electronic health records (EHR) system must be balanced against public concerns about data security and personal privacy. Successful development of EHR requires better understanding of the views of the public and those most affected by EHR: users of the National Health Service. This study aims to explore the correlation between personal healthcare experience (including number of healthcare contacts and number and type of longer term conditions) and views relating to development of EHR for healthcare, health services planning and policy and health research. Methods/design A multi-site cross-sectional self-complete questionnaire designed and piloted for use in waiting rooms was administered to patients from randomly selected outpatients’ clinics at a university teaching hospital (431 beds) and general practice surgeries from the four primary care trusts within the catchment area of the hospital. All patients entering the selected outpatients clinics and general practice surgeries were invited to take part in the survey during August-September 2011. Statistical analyses will be conducted using descriptive techniques to present respondents’ overall views about electronic health records and logistic regression to explore associations between these views and participants’ personal circumstances, experiences, sociodemographics and more specific views about electronic health records. Discussion The study design and implementation were successful, resulting in unusually high response rates and overall recruitment (85.5%, 5336 responses). Rates for face-to-face recruitment in previous work are variable, but typically lower (mean 76.7%, SD 20). We discuss details of how we collected the data to provide insight into how we obtained this unusually high response rate.