Are You Ready? How Health Professionals Can Comprehensively Conceptualize Readiness for Change

One important factor influencing the successful implementation of system-wide change is initial readiness. Readiness is defined as the degree to which those involved are individually and collectively primed, motivated, and technically capable of executing the change. We present a conceptual framework that highlights three broad areas to be considered if health-care professionals are to comprehensively evaluate readiness that includes psychological factors (i.e., characteristics of those being asked to change), structural factors (i.e., circumstances under which the change is occurring) as well as the level of analysis (i.e., individual and organizational levels). We also describe more specific dimensions within each of these broad categories that have both empirical and theoretical support, presenting several valid and reliable survey instruments that measure key dimensions of readiness quantitatively

Development and Pilot Test of the Workplace Readiness Questionnaire, a Theory-Based Instrument to Measure Small Workplaces’ Readiness to Implement Wellness Programs

To develop a theory-based questionnaire to assess readiness for change in small workplaces adopting wellness programs

A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, or PARIHS, is a conceptual framework that posits key, interacting elements that influence successful implementation of evidence-based practices. It has been widely cited and used as the basis for empirical work; however, there has not yet been a literature review to examine how the framework has been used in implementation projects and research. The purpose of the present article was to critically review and synthesize the literature on PARIHS to understand how it has been used and operationalized, and to highlight its strengths and limitations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a qualitative, critical synthesis of peer-reviewed PARIHS literature published through March 2009. We synthesized findings through a three-step process using semi-structured data abstraction tools and group consensus.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-four articles met our inclusion criteria: six core concept articles from original PARIHS authors, and eighteen empirical articles ranging from case reports to quantitative studies. Empirical articles generally used PARIHS as an organizing framework for analyses. No studies used PARIHS prospectively to design implementation strategies, and there was generally a lack of detail about how variables were measured or mapped, or how conclusions were derived. Several studies used findings to comment on the framework in ways that could help refine or validate it. The primary issue identified with the framework was a need for greater conceptual clarity regarding the definition of sub-elements and the nature of dynamic relationships. Strengths identified included its flexibility, intuitive appeal, explicit acknowledgement of the outcome of 'successful implementation,' and a more expansive view of what can and should constitute 'evidence.'</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While we found studies reporting empirical support for PARIHS, the single greatest need for this and other implementation models is rigorous, prospective use of the framework to guide implementation projects. There is also need to better explain derived findings and how interventions or measures are mapped to specific PARIHS elements; greater conceptual discrimination among sub-elements may be necessary first. In general, it may be time for the implementation science community to develop consensus guidelines for reporting the use and usefulness of theoretical frameworks within implementation studies.</p

A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Based on a critical synthesis of literature on use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, revisions and a companion <it>Guide </it>were developed by a group of researchers independent of the original PARIHS team. The purpose of the <it>Guide </it>is to enhance and optimize efforts of researchers using PARIHS in implementation trials and evaluations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Authors used a planned, structured process to organize and synthesize critiques, discussions, and potential recommendations for refinements of the PARIHS framework arising from a systematic review. Using a templated form, each author independently recorded key components for each reviewed paper; that is, study definitions, perceived strengths/limitations of PARIHS, other observations regarding key issues and recommendations regarding needed refinements. After reaching consensus on these key components, the authors summarized the information and developed the <it>Guide</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A number of revisions, perceived as consistent with the PARIHS framework's general nature and intent, are proposed. The related <it>Guide </it>is composed of a set of reference tools, provided in Additional files. Its core content is built upon the basic elements of PARIHS and current implementation science.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We invite researchers using PARIHS for targeted evidence-based practice (EBP) implementations with a strong task-orientation to use this <it>Guide </it>as a companion and to apply the revised framework prospectively and comprehensively. Researchers also are encouraged to evaluate its use relative to perceived strengths and issues. Such evaluations and critical reflections regarding PARIHS and our <it>Guide </it>could thereby promote the framework's continued evolution.</p

The most used and most helpful facilitators for patient-centered medical home implementation

Background: Like other transformative healthcare initiatives, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation requires substantial investments of time and resources. Even though PCMH and PCMH-like models are being implemented by multiple provider practices and health systems, little is known about what facilitates their implementation. The purpose of this study was to assess which PCMH-implementation resources are most widely used, by whom, and which resources primary care personnel find most helpful. Methods: This study is an analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey of primary care personnel in the Veterans Health Administration in 2012, in which respondents were asked to rate whether they were aware of and accessed PCMH-implementation resources, and to rate their helpfulness. Logistic regression was used to produce odds ratios for the outcomes (1) resource use and (2) resource helpfulness. Respondents were nested within clinics, nested, in turn, within 135 parent hospitals. Results: Teamlet huddles were the most widely accessed (80.4% accessed) and most helpful (90.4% rated helpful) resource; quality-improvement methods to conduct small tests of change were the least frequently accessed (42.4% accessed) resource though two-thirds (66.7%) of users reported as helpful. Supervisors were significantly more likely (ORs, 1.46 to 1.86) to use resources than non-supervisors but were less likely to rate the majority (8 out of 10) of resources as "somewhat/very helpful" than non-supervisors (ORs, 0.72 to 0.84). Longer-tenured employees tended to rate resources as more helpful. Conclusions: These findings are the first in the PCMH literature that we are aware of that systematically assesses primary care staff's access to and the helpfulness of PCMH implementation resources. Supervisors generally reported greater access to resources, relative to non-supervisors, but rated resources as less helpful, suggesting that information about them may not have been optimally disseminated. Knowing what resources primary care staff use and find helpful can inform administrators' and policymakers' investments in PCMH-implementation resources. The implications of our model extend beyond just PCMH implementation but also to considerations when providing implementation resources for other complex quality-improvement initiatives.KEYWORDS: Provider self-efficacy, Patient-centered medical home, Implementation resourcesThis is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by BioMed Central and can be found at: http://www.implementationscience.co

Bending elasticity of a curved amphiphilic film decorated anchored copolymers: a small angle neutron scattering study

Microemulsion droplets (oil in water stabilized by a surfactant film) are progressively decorated with increasing amounts of poly ethylene- oxide (PEO) chains anchored in the film by the short aliphatic chain grafted at one end of the PEO chain . The evolution of the bending elasticity of the surfactant film with increasing decoration is deduced from the evolution in size and polydispersity of the droplets as reflected by small angle neutron scattering. The optimum curvature radius decreases while the bending rigidity modulus remains practically constant. The experimental results compare well with the predictions of a model developed for the bending properties of a curved film decorated by non-adsorbing polymer chains, which takes into account, the finite curvature of the film and the free diffusion of the chains on the film.Comment: 30 June 200

Declining mortality following acute myocardial infarction in the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Mortality from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is declining worldwide. We sought to determine if mortality in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has also been declining.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We calculated 30-day mortality rates between 2004 and 2006 using data from the VHA External Peer Review Program (EPRP), which entails detailed abstraction of records of all patients with AMI. To compare trends within VHA with other systems of care, we estimated relative mortality rates between 2000 and 2005 for all males 65 years and older with a primary diagnosis of AMI using administrative data from the VHA Patient Treatment File and the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) files.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using EPRP data on 11,609 patients, we observed a statistically significant decline in adjusted 30-day mortality following AMI in VHA from 16.3% in 2004 to 13.9% in 2006, a relative decrease of 15% and a decrease in the odds of dying of 10% per year (p = .011). Similar declines were found for in-hospital and 90-day mortality.</p> <p>Based on administrative data on 27,494 VHA patients age 65 years and older and 789,400 Medicare patients, 30-day mortality following AMI declined from 16.0% during 2000-2001 to 15.7% during 2004-June 2005 in VHA and from 16.7% to 15.5% in private sector hospitals. After adjusting for patient characteristics and hospital effects, the overall relative odds of death were similar for VHA and Medicare (odds ratio 1.02, 95% C.I. 0.96-1.08).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Mortality following AMI within VHA has declined significantly since 2003 at a rate that parallels that in Medicare-funded hospitals.</p

Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): Development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS, framework is a theoretical framework widely promoted as a guide to implement evidence-based clinical practices. However, it has as yet no pool of validated measurement instruments that operationalize the constructs defined in the framework. The present article introduces an Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment instrument (ORCA), organized according to the core elements and sub-elements of the PARIHS framework, and reports on initial validation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted scale reliability and factor analyses on cross-sectional, secondary data from three quality improvement projects (n = 80) conducted in the Veterans Health Administration. In each project, identical 77-item ORCA instruments were administered to one or more staff from each facility involved in quality improvement projects. Items were organized into 19 subscales and three primary scales corresponding to the core elements of the PARIHS framework: (1) Strength and extent of evidence for the clinical practice changes represented by the QI program, assessed with four subscales, (2) Quality of the organizational context for the QI program, assessed with six subscales, and (3) Capacity for internal facilitation of the QI program, assessed with nine subscales.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cronbach's alpha for scale reliability were 0.74, 0.85 and 0.95 for the evidence, context and facilitation scales, respectively. The evidence scale and its three constituent subscales failed to meet the conventional threshold of 0.80 for reliability, and three individual items were eliminated from evidence subscales following reliability testing. In exploratory factor analysis, three factors were retained. Seven of the nine facilitation subscales loaded onto the first factor; five of the six context subscales loaded onto the second factor; and the three evidence subscales loaded on the third factor. Two subscales failed to load significantly on any factor. One measured resources in general (from the context scale), and one clinical champion role (from the facilitation scale).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We find general support for the reliability and factor structure of the ORCA. However, there was poor reliability among measures of evidence, and factor analysis results for measures of general resources and clinical champion role did not conform to the PARIHS framework. Additional validation is needed, including criterion validation.</p

Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on the Competing Values Framework: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses

BACKGROUND: The Competing Values Framework (CVF) has been widely used in health services research to assess organizational culture as a predictor of quality improvement implementation, employee and patient satisfaction, and team functioning, among other outcomes. CVF instruments generally are presented as well-validated with reliable aggregated subscales. However, only one study in the health sector has been conducted for the express purpose of validation, and that study population was limited to hospital managers from a single geographic locale. METHODS: We used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to examine the underlying structure of data from a CVF instrument. We analyzed cross-sectional data from a work environment survey conducted in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The study population comprised all staff in non-supervisory positions. The survey included 14 items adapted from a popular CVF instrument, which measures organizational culture according to four subscales: hierarchical, entrepreneurial, team, and rational. RESULTS: Data from 71,776 non-supervisory employees (approximate response rate 51%) from 168 VHA facilities were used in this analysis. Internal consistency of the subscales was moderate to strong (α = 0.68 to 0.85). However, the entrepreneurial, team, and rational subscales had higher correlations across subscales than within, indicating poor divergent properties. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors, comprising the ten items from the entrepreneurial, team, and rational subscales loading on the first factor, and two items from the hierarchical subscale loading on the second factor, along with one item from the rational subscale that cross-loaded on both factors. Results from confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the two-subscale solution provides a more parsimonious fit to the data as compared to the original four-subscale model. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that there may be problems applying conventional CVF subscales to non-supervisors, and underscores the importance of assessing psychometric properties of instruments in each new context and population to which they are applied. It also further highlights the challenges management scholars face in assessing organizational culture in a reliable and comparable way. More research is needed to determine if the emergent two-subscale solution is a valid or meaningful alternative and whether these findings generalize beyond VHA

Assessing the organizational context for EBP implementation: the development and validity testing of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS)

BACKGROUND: Although the importance of the organizational environment for implementing evidence-based practices (EBP) has been widely recognized, there are limited options for measuring implementation climate in public sector health settings. The goal of this research was to develop and test a measure of EBP implementation climate that would both capture a broad range of issues important for effective EBP implementation and be of practical use to researchers and managers seeking to understand and improve the implementation of EBPs. METHODS: Participants were 630 clinicians working in 128 work groups in 32 US-based mental health agencies. Items to measure climate for EBP implementation were developed based on past literature on implementation climate and other strategic climates and in consultation with experts on the implementation of EBPs in mental health settings. The sample was randomly split at the work group level of analysis; half of the sample was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the other half was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The entire sample was utilized for additional analyses assessing the reliability, support for level of aggregation, and construct-based evidence of validity. RESULTS: The EFA resulted in a final factor structure of six dimensions for the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS): 1) focus on EBP, 2) educational support for EBP, 3) recognition for EBP, 4) rewards for EBP, 5) selection for EBP, and 6) selection for openness. This structure was supported in the other half of the sample using CFA. Additional analyses supported the reliability and construct-based evidence of validity for the ICS, as well as the aggregation of the measure to the work group level. CONCLUSIONS: The ICS is a very brief (18 item) and pragmatic measure of a strategic climate for EBP implementation. It captures six dimensions of the organizational context that indicate to employees the extent to which their organization prioritizes and values the successful implementation of EBPs. The ICS can be used by researchers to better understand the role of the organizational context on implementation outcomes and by organizations to evaluate their current climate as they consider how to improve the likelihood of implementation success. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0157-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users