When Coproduction Is Unproductive; Comment on “Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering with University-Based Researchers in Canada: A Call to ‘Re-Imagine’ Research”

Bowen et al offer a sobering look at the reality of research partnerships from the decision-maker perspective. Health leaders who had actively engaged in such partnerships continued to describe research as irrelevant and unhelpful – just the problem that partnered research was intended to solve. This commentary further examines the many barriers that impede researchers from meeting decision-makers’ knowledge needs, and decision-makers from using knowledge that they have coproduced. It argues that not all barriers can or should be dismantled: some are legitimate and beneficial; some are harmful but deeply entrenched; some arise unpredictably. This being the case, it seems unrealistic to expect either existing or emerging strategies to create a macro-context devoid of barriers to the fruitful coproduction of knowledge. However, it may be possible to identify and support micro-contexts (configurations of participants, settings, and project characteristics) in which partnered research is most likely to achieve its aims

Norton Healthcare: A Strong Payer-Provider Partnership for the Journey to Accountable Care

Examines the progress of an integrated healthcare delivery system in forming an accountable care organization with payer partners as part of the Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Pilot Program, including a focus on performance measurement and reporting

HealthCare Partners: Building on a Foundation of Global Risk Management to Achieve Accountable Care

Describes the progress of a medical group and independent practice association in forming an accountable care organization by working with insurers as part of the Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Pilot Program. Lists lessons learned and elements of success

Four Health Care Organizations' Efforts to Improve Patient Care and Reduce Costs

Synthesizes findings from four case studies in the Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Pilot Program about forming integrated systems that can deliver accountable care under shared-savings agreements with private payers

Monarch HealthCare: Leveraging Experience in Population Health Management to Attain Accountable Care

Examines the progress of a physician-led independent practice association in forming an accountable care organization by working with Anthem as part of the Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Pilot Program, including creating the infrastructure for accountable care

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)

Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply

Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework.

Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders

Of insurgents and innovators : contextual authoritarianism and influence in political parties and beyond

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

The three paradoxes of patient flow: an explanatory case study

Abstract Background Health systems in many jurisdictions struggle to reduce Emergency Department congestion and improve patient flow across the continuum of care. Flow is often described as a systemic issue requiring a “system approach”; however, the implications of this idea remain poorly understood. Focusing on a Canadian regional health system whose flow problems have been particularly intractable, this study sought to determine what system-level flaws impede healthcare organizations from improving flow. Methods This study drew primarily on qualitative data from in-depth interviews with 62 senior, middle and departmental managers representing the Region, its programs and sites; quantitative analysis of key flow indicators (1999–2012) and review of ~700 documents furnished important context. Examination of the interview data revealed that the most striking feature of the dataset was contradiction; accordingly, a technique of dialectical analysis was developed to examine observed contradictions at successively deeper levels. Results Analysis uncovered three paradoxes: “Many Small Successes and One Big Failure” (initiatives improve parts of the system but fail to fix underlying system constraints); “Your Innovation Is My Aggravation” (local innovation clashes with regional integration); and most critically, “Your Order Is My Chaos” (rules that improve service organization for my patients create obstacles for yours). This last emerges when some entities (sites/hospitals) define their patients in terms of their location in the system, while others (regional programs) define them in terms of their needs/characteristics. As accountability for improving flow was distributed among groups that thus variously defined their patients, local efforts achieved little for the overall system, and often clashed with each other. These paradoxes are indicative of a fundamental antagonism between the system’s parts and the whole. Conclusion An accretion of flow initiatives in all parts of the system will never add up to a system approach, and may indeed perpetuate the paradoxes. What is needed is a coherent strategy of defining patient populations by needs, analyzing their entire trajectories of care, and developing consistent processes to better meet those needs