Gillian Harvey

Methods to Succeed in Effective Knowledge Translation in Clinical Practice

PURPOSE To explore the evidence around facilitation as an intervention for the successful implementation of new knowledge into clinical practice. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT The revised version of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, called the integrated or i-PARIHS framework, is used as the explanatory framework. This framework posits that evidence is a multidimensional construct embedded within innovation and operationalized by clinicians (individuals and within teams), working across multiple layers of context. Facilitation is the active ingredient that promotes successful implementation. FINDINGS An emerging body of evidence supports facilitation as a mechanism to getting new knowledge into clinical practice. Facilitation roles are divided into beginner, experienced, and expert facilitators. Facilitators can be internal or external to the organization they work in, and their skills and attributes complement other knowledge translation (KT) roles. Complex KT projects require facilitators who are experienced in implementation methods. CONCLUSIONS Facilitation is positioned as the active ingredient to effectively introduce new knowledge into a clinical setting. Levels of facilitation experience are assessed in relation to the complexity of the KT task. Three core facilitation roles are identified, and structured interventions are established taking into account the nature and novelty of the evidence, the receptiveness of the clinicians, and the context or setting where the new evidence is to be introduced. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Roles such as novice, experienced, and expert facilitators have important and complementary parts to play in enabling the successful translation of evidence into everyday practice in order to provide effective care for patients.Purpose To explore the evidence around facilitation as an intervention for the successful implementation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Organizing Construct The revised version of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, called the integrated or i-PARIHS framework, is used as the explanatory framework. This framework posits that evidence is a multidimensional construct embedded within innovation and operationalized by clinicians (individuals and within teams), working across multiple layers of context. Facilitation is the active ingredient that promotes successful implementation. Findings An emerging body of evidence supports facilitation as a mechanism to getting new knowledge into clinical practice. Facilitation roles are divided into beginner, experienced, and expert facilitators. Facilitators can be internal or external to the organization they work in, and their skills and attributes complement other knowledge translation (KT) roles. Complex KT projects require facilitators who are experienced in implementation methods. Conclusions Facilitation is positioned as the active ingredient to effectively introduce new knowledge into a clinical setting. Levels of facilitation experience are assessed in relation to the complexity of the KT task. Three core facilitation roles are identified, and structured interventions are established taking into account the nature and novelty of the evidence, the receptiveness of the clinicians, and the context or setting where the new evidence is to be introduced. Clinical Relevance Roles such as novice, experienced, and expert facilitators have important and complementary parts to play in enabling the successful translation of evidence into everyday practice in order to provide effective care for patients.

Priority setting and implementation in a centralized health system: a case study of Kerman province in Iran

The question of how priority setting processes work remains topical, contentious and political in every health system across the globe. It is particularly acute in the context of developing countries because of the mismatch between needs and resources, which is often compounded by an underdeveloped capacity for decision making and weak institutional infrastructures. Yet there is limited research into how the process of setting and implementing health priorities works in developing countries. This study aims to address this gap by examining how a national priority setting programme works in the centralized health system of Iran and what factors influence its implementation at the meso and micro levels. We used a qualitative case study approach, incorporating mixed methods: in-depth interviews at three levels and a textual analysis of policy documents. The data analysis showed that the process of priority setting is non-systematic, there is little transparency as to how specific priorities are decided, and the decisions made are separated from their implementation. This is due to the highly centralized system, whereby health priorities are set at the macro level without involving meso or micro local levels or any representative of the public. Furthermore, the two main benefit packages are decided by different bodies (Ministry of Health and Medical Education and Ministry of Welfare and Social Security) and there is no co-ordination between them. The process is also heavily influenced by political pressure exerted by various groups, mostly medical professionals who attempt to control priority setting in accordance with their interests. Finally, there are many weaknesses in the implementation of priorities, resulting in a growing gap between rural and urban areas in terms of access to health services.

Criteria formulation and application: an evaluative framework

This paper critically examines how criteria are formulated and applied in quality assurance or quality improvement systems. It begins by drawing attention to the division that exists between criteria derived by so-called expert groups and those developed more locally by practitioners. In seeking to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of these two contrasting approaches, it explores the more fundamental questions of how criteria are formulated in general and how they can best be applied. An evaluative framework is offered as a working checklist for practitioners involved in criteria formulation. The framework identifies three main areas: actual construction of criteria; procedures for formulation and issues related to application. An example of each area is offered from results of the ODySSSy Project. The paper concludes by recommending more systematic studies in this highly complex area.

Enabling Continuous Quality Improvement in Practice: The Role and Contribution of Facilitation

Facilitating the implementation of continuous quality improvement (CQI) is a complex undertaking. Numerous contextual factors at a local, organizational, and health system level can influence the trajectory and ultimate success of an improvement program. Some of these contextual factors are amenable to modification, others less so. As part of planning and implementing healthcare improvement, it is important to assess and build an understanding of contextual factors that might present barriers to or enablers of implementation. On the basis of this initial diagnosis, it should then be possible to design and implement the improvement intervention in a way that is responsive to contextual barriers and enablers, often described as “tailoring” the implementation approach. Having individuals in the active role of facilitators is proposed as an effective way of delivering a context-sensitive, tailored approach to implementing CQI. This paper presents an overview of the facilitator role in implementing CQI. Drawing on empirical evidence from the use of facilitator roles in healthcare, the type of skills and knowledge required will be considered, along with the type of facilitation strategies that can be employed in the implementation process. Evidence from both case studies and systematic reviews of facilitation will be reviewed and key lessons for developing and studying the role in the future identified.

A developmental evaluation to enhance stakeholder engagement in a wide-scale interactive project disseminating quality improvement data: study protocol for a mixed-methods study

Introduction Bringing together continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from multiple health services offers opportunities to identify common improvement priorities and to develop interventions at various system levels to achieve large-scale improvement in care. An important principle of CQI is practitioner participation in interpreting data and planning evidence-based change. This study will contribute knowledge about engaging diverse stakeholders in collaborative and theoretically informed processes to identify and address priority evidence-practice gaps in care delivery. This paper describes a developmental evaluation to support and refine a novel interactive dissemination project using aggregated CQI data from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare centres in Australia. The project aims to effect multilevel system improvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. Methods and analysis Data will be gathered using document analysis, online surveys, interviews with participants and iterative analytical processes with the research team. These methods will enable real-time feedback to guide refinements to the design, reports, tools and processes as the interactive dissemination project is implemented. Qualitative data from interviews and surveys will be analysed and interpreted to provide in-depth understanding of factors that influence engagement and stakeholder perspectives about use of the aggregated data and generated improvement strategies. Sources of data will be triangulated to build up a comprehensive, contextualised perspective and integrated understanding of the projects development, implementation and findings. Ethics and dissemination The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (Project 2015-2329), the Central Australian HREC (Project 15-288) and the Charles Darwin University HREC (Project H15030) approved the study. Dissemination will include articles in peer-reviewed journals, policy and research briefs. Results will be presented at conferences and quality improvement network meetings. Researchers, clinicians, policymakers and managers developing evidence-based system and policy interventions should benefit from this research.

When east meets west: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to evidence-based practice in Hunan China

BackgroundResearch into evidence-based practice has been extensively explored in nursing and there is strong recognition that the organizational context influences implementation. A range of barriers has been identified; however, the research has predominantly taken place in Western cultures, and there is little information about factors that influence evidence-based practice in China. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to evidence-based practice in Hunan province, a less developed region in China.MethodsA descriptive qualitative methodology was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff nurses, head nurses and directors (n = 13). Interviews were translated into English and verified for accuracy by two bilingual researchers. Both Chinese and English data were simultaneously analyzed for themes related to factors related to the evidence to be implemented (Innovation), nurses’ attitudes and beliefs (Potential Adopters), and the organizational setting (Practice Environment).ResultsBarriers included lack of available evidence in Chinese, nurses’ lack of understanding of what evidence-based practice means, and fear that patients will be angry about receiving care that is perceived as non-traditional. Nurses believed evidence-based practice was to be used when clinical problems arose, and not as a routine way to practice. Facilitators included leadership support and the pervasiveness of web based social network services such as Baidu (百度) for easy access to information.ConclusionWhile several parallels to previous research were found, our study adds to the knowledge base about factors related to evidence-based practice in different contextual settings. Findings are important for international comparisons to develop strategies for nurses to provide evidence-based care.