Developing implementation research capacity: longitudinal evaluation of the King's College London Implementation Science Masterclass, 2014-2019.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing number of training opportunities in implementation science becoming available, the demand for training amongst researchers and practitioners is unmet. To address this training shortfall, we developed the King's College London 'Implementation Science Masterclass' (ISM), an innovative 2-day programme (and currently the largest of its kind in Europe), developed and delivered by an international faculty of implementation experts. METHODS: This paper describes the ISM and provides delegates' quantitative and qualitative evaluations (gathered through a survey at the end of the ISM) and faculty reflections over the period it has been running (2014-2019). RESULTS: Across the 6-year evaluation, a total of 501 delegates have attended the ISM, with numbers increasing yearly from 40 (in 2014) to 147 (in 2019). Delegates represent a diversity of backgrounds and 29 countries from across the world. The overall response rate for the delegate survey was 64.5% (323/501). Annually, the ISM has been rated 'highly' in terms of delegates' overall impression (92%), clear and relevant learning objectives (90% and 94%, respectively), the course duration (85%), pace (86%) and academic level 87%), and the support provided on the day (92%). Seventy-one percent of delegates reported the ISM would have an impact on how they approached their future work. Qualitative feedback revealed key strengths include the opportunities to meet with an international and diverse pool of experts and individuals working in the field, the interactive nature of the workshops and training sessions, and the breadth of topics and contexts covered. CONCLUSIONS: Yearly, the UK ISM has grown, both in size and in its international reach. Rated consistently favourably by delegates, the ISM helps to tackle current training demands from all those interested in learning and building their skills in implementation science. Evaluation of the ISM will continue to be an annual iterative process, reflective of changes in the evidence base and delegates changing needs as the field evolves

Spitzer Space Telescope observatory planning and scheduling team

Launched as the space infrared telescope facility (SIRTF) in August, 2003 and renamed in early 2004, the Spitzer space telescope is performing an extended series of science observations at wavelengths ranging from 3 to 180 microns. The California Institute of Technology is the home of the Spitzer Science Center (SSC) and operates the science operations system (SOS), which supports science operations of the observatory. A key function supported by the SOS is the long-range planning and short-term scheduling of the observatory. This paper describes the role and function of the SSC observatory planning and scheduling team (OPST), its operational interfaces, processes, and tools

Smart SPHERES: A Telerobotic Free-Flyer for Intravehicular Activities in Space

Smart SPHERES is a prototype free-flying space robot based on the SPHERES platform. Smart SPHERES can be remotely operated by astronauts inside a spacecraft, or by mission controllers on the ground. We developed Smart SPHERES to perform a variety of intravehicular activities (IVA), such as operations inside the International Space Station (ISS). These IVA tasks include environmental monitoring surveys (radiation, sound levels, etc.), inventory, and mobile camera work. In this paper, we first discuss the motivation for free-flying space robots. We then describe the development of the Smart SPHERES prototype, including avionics, software, and data communications. Finally, we present results of initial flight tests on-board the ISS

Project ACHIEVE – Using Implementation Research to Guide the Evaluation of Transitional Care Effectiveness

Background: Poorly managed hospital discharges and care transitions between health care facilities can cause poor outcomes for both patients and their caregivers. Unfortunately, the usual approach to health care delivery does not support continuity and coordination across the settings of hospital, doctors’ offices, home or nursing homes. Though complex efforts with multiple components can improve patient outcomes and reduce 30-day readmissions, research has not identified which components are necessary. Also we do not know how delivery of core components may need to be adjusted based on patient, caregiver, setting or characteristics of the community, or how system redesign can be accelerated. Methods/design: Project ACHIEVE focuses on diverse Medicare populations such as individuals with multiple chronic diseases, patients with low health literacy/numeracy and limited English proficiency, racial and ethnic minority groups, low-income groups, residents of rural areas, and individuals with disabilities. During the first phase, we will use focus groups to identify the transitional care outcomes and components that matter most to patients and caregivers to inform development and validation of assessment instruments. During the second phase, we will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of multi-component care transitions programs occurring across the U.S. Using a mixed-methods approach for this evaluation, we will study historical (retrospective) and current and future (prospective) groups of patients, caregivers and providers using site visits, surveys, and clinical and claims data. In this natural experiment observational study, we use a fractional factorial study design to specify comparators and estimate the individual and combined effects of key transitional care components. Discussion: Our study will determine which evidence-based transitional care components and/or clusters most effectively produce patient and caregiver desired outcomes overall and among diverse patient and caregiver populations in different healthcare settings. Using the results, we will develop concrete, actionable recommendations regarding how best to implement these strategies. Finally, this work will provide tools for hospitals, community-based organizations, patients, caregivers, clinicians and other stakeholders to help them make informed decisions about which strategies are most effective and how best to implement them in their communities. Trial registration: Registered as NCT02354482 on clinicaltrials.gov on 1/29/201

Translating clinical training into practice in complex mental health systems: Toward opening the 'Black Box' of implementation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Implementing clinical training in a complex health care system is challenging. This report describes two successive trainings programs in one Veterans Affairs healthcare network and the lessons we drew from their success and failures. The first training experience led us to appreciate the value of careful implementation planning while the second suggested that use of an external facilitator might be an especially effective implementation component. We also describe a third training intervention in which we expect to more rigorously test our hypothesis regarding the value of external facilitation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our experiences appear to be consonant with the implementation model proposed by Fixsen. In this paper we offer a modified version of the Fixsen model with separate components related to training and implementation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This report further reinforces what others have noted, namely that educational interventions intended to change clinical practice should employ a multilevel approach if patients are to truly benefit from new skills gained by clinicians. We utilize an implementation research model to illustrate how the aims of the second intervention were realized and sustained over the 12-month follow-up period, and to suggest directions for future implementation research. The present report attests to the validity of, and contributes to, the emerging literature on implementation research.</p

Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework : theoretical and practical challenges

Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives

The U.S. training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health

Abstract Background The science of dissemination and implementation (D&amp;I) is advancing the knowledge base for how best to integrate evidence-based interventions within clinical and community settings and how to recast the nature or conduct of the research itself to make it more relevant and actionable in those settings. While the field is growing, there are only a few training programs for D&amp;I research; this is an important avenue to help build the field’s capacity. To improve the United States’ capacity for D&amp;I research, the National Institutes of Health and Veterans Health Administration collaborated to develop a five-day training institute for postdoctoral level applicants aspiring to advance this science. Methods We describe the background, goals, structure, curriculum, application process, trainee evaluation, and future plans for the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH). Results The TIDIRH used a five-day residential immersion to maximize opportunities for trainees and faculty to interact. The train-the-trainer-like approach was intended to equip participants with materials that they could readily take back to their home institutions to increase interest and further investment in D&amp;I. The TIDIRH curriculum included a balance of structured large group discussions and interactive small group sessions. Thirty-five of 266 applicants for the first annual training institute were accepted from a variety of disciplines, including psychology (12 trainees); medicine (6 trainees); epidemiology (5 trainees); health behavior/health education (4 trainees); and 1 trainee each from education &amp; human development, health policy and management, health services research, public health studies, public policy and social work, with a maximum of two individuals from any one institution. The institute was rated as very helpful by attendees, and by six months after the institute, a follow-up survey (97% return rate) revealed that 72% had initiated a new grant proposal in D&amp;I research; 28% had received funding, and 77% had used skills from TIDIRH to influence their peers from different disciplines about D&amp;I research through building local research networks, organizing formal presentations and symposia, teaching and by leading interdisciplinary teams to conduct D&amp;I research. Conclusions The initial TIDIRH training was judged successful by trainee evaluation at the conclusion of the week’s training and six-month follow-up, and plans are to continue and possibly expand the TIDIRH in coming years. Strengths are seen as the residential format, quality of the faculty and their flexibility in adjusting content to meet trainee needs, and the highlighting of concrete D&amp;I examples by the local host institution, which rotates annually. Lessons learned and plans for future TIDIRH trainings are summarized

How can the practice nurse be more involved in the care of the chronically ill? The perspectives of GPs, patients and practice nurses

BACKGROUND: A well established "midlevel" of patient care, such as nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants, exits in many countries like the US, Canada, and Australia. In Germany, however there is only one kind of profession assisting the physician in practices, the practice nurse. Little is known about the present involvement of practice nurses in patients' care in Germany and about the attitudes of GPs, assistants and patients concerning an increased involvement. The aim of our study was to get qualitative information on the extent to which practice nurses are currently involved in the treatment of patients and about possibilities of increased involvement as well as on barriers of increased involvement. METHODS: We performed qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs, 20 practice nurses and 20 patients in the Heidelberg area. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and content-analysed with ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: Practice nurses are only marginally involved in the treatment of patients. GPs as well as patients were very sceptical about increased involvement in care. Patients were sceptical about nurses' professional background and feared a worsening of the patient doctor relationship. GPs also complained about the nurses' deficient education concerning medical knowledge. They feared a lack of time as well as a missing reimbursement for the efforts of an increased involvement. Practice nurses were mostly willing to be more involved, regarding it as an appreciation of their role. Important barriers were lack of time, overload with administrative work, and a lack of professional knowledge. CONCLUSION: Practice nurses were only little involved in patient care. GPs were more sceptical than patients regarding an increased involvement. One possible area, accepted by all interviewed groups, was patient education as for instance dietary counselling. New treatment approaches as the chronic care model will require a team approach which currently only marginally exists in the German health care system. Better medical education of practice nurses is indispensable, but GPs also have to accept that they cannot fulfil the requirement of future care alone