Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments.

BACKGROUND: Organizational readiness assessments have a history of being developed as important support tools for successful implementation. However, it remains unclear how best to operationalize readiness across varied projects or settings. We conducted a synthesis and content analysis of published readiness instruments to compare how investigators have operationalized the concept of organizational readiness for change. METHODS: We identified readiness assessments using a systematic review and update search. We mapped individual assessment items to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which identifies five domains affecting implementation (outer setting, inner setting, intervention characteristics, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process) and multiple constructs within each domain. RESULTS: Of 1370 survey items, 897 (68%) mapped to the CFIR domain of inner setting, most commonly related to constructs of readiness for implementation (n = 220); networks and communication (n = 207); implementation climate (n = 204); structural characteristics (n = 139); and culture (n = 93). Two hundred forty-two items (18%) mapped to characteristics of individuals (mainly other personal attributes [n = 157] and self-efficacy [n = 52]); 80 (6%) mapped to outer setting; 51 (4%) mapped to implementation process; 40 (3%) mapped to intervention characteristics; and 60 (4%) did not map to CFIR constructs. Instruments were typically tailored to specific interventions or contexts. DISCUSSION: Available readiness instruments predominantly focus on contextual factors within the organization and characteristics of individuals, but the specificity of most assessment items suggests a need to tailor items to the specific scenario in which an assessment is fielded. Readiness assessments must bridge the gap between measuring a theoretical construct and factors of importance to a particular implementation.

Development of a web-based toolkit to support improvement of care coordination in primary care.

Promising practices for the coordination of chronic care exist, but how to select and share these practices to support quality improvement within a healthcare system is uncertain. This study describes an approach for selecting high-quality tools for an online care coordination toolkit to be used in Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care practices. We evaluated tools in three steps: (1) an initial screening to identify tools relevant to care coordination in VA primary care, (2) a two-clinician expert review process assessing tool characteristics (e.g. frequency of problem addressed, linkage to patients' experience of care, effect on practice workflow, and sustainability with existing resources) and assigning each tool a summary rating, and (3) semi-structured interviews with VA patients and frontline clinicians and staff. Of 300 potentially relevant tools identified by searching online resources, 65, 38, and 18 remained after steps one, two and three, respectively. The 18 tools cover five topics: managing referrals to specialty care, medication management, patient after-visit summary, patient activation materials, agenda setting, patient pre-visit packet, and provider contact information for patients. The final toolkit provides access to the 18 tools, as well as detailed information about tools' expected benefits, and resources required for tool implementation. Future care coordination efforts can benefit from systematically reviewing available tools to identify those that are high quality and relevant.

Partnering to improve care: the case of the Veterans' Health Administration's Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Within many large health care organizations, researchers and operations partners (i.e., policymakers, managers, clinical leaders) join to conduct studies to improve the quality of patient care. Yet optimal approaches to conducting partnership research and evaluation are only beginning to be clearly defined. The Veterans' Health Administration (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), funded by operations leaders and administered by the VA's research service, now has nearly two decades of experience in fostering research-operations partnerships for improving quality of VA care. The work reported here is part of a national evaluation of QUERI. Because individuals in research and operations often have differing backgrounds and perspectives, we aim to identify the main sources of tension in research-operations partnerships and strategies for maximizing partnership success, through the eyes of QUERI participants. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 116 researchers and operations partners chosen randomly from within pre-identified key participant groups. We conducted inductive qualitative analysis of verbatim interview transcripts, limited to the 89 interviews of individuals reporting at least some familiarity with QUERI. RESULTS: Tensions in research-operations partnerships were primarily related to diverging incentives and to differing values placed on scientific rigor or integrity versus quick timelines. To alleviate these tensions, operations' partners highlighted the importance of 'perspective-taking' (i.e., putting themselves into the shoes of the researchers) to ensure a mutually beneficial and attractive partnership, whereas researchers identified the importance of overcoming the need for recognition to be apportioned between either research or operations for achieved results. Both researchers and operations participants identified jointly designing each partnership from the beginning, minimizing research bureaucracy burdens, and prioritizing in-person communication and long-term relationships as key partnership building blocks. CONCLUSIONS: QUERI research and operations participants had largely concordant views on partnership tensions and approaches for improving partnership success. The fact that only researchers mentioned moving beyond recognition for the results achieved and only operations staff mentioned the importance of 'perspective-taking' suggests, however, that there may be unresolved tensions. These results suggest that researchers may benefit from better aligning of academic incentives with contributions to the health care organization and establishing formal recognition of operational impacts of research, while preserving some flexibility and independence of the research process.