Insights on a National Safety Improvement Learning Collaborative: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Background: There is a growing interest in quality improvement collaboratives (QICs), even though less remains known about contextual factors that impact collective and local project implementation. A study was undertaken that used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore the contextual factors impacting the use of this nationwide QIC in Canada. Methods: A deductive or direct qualitative content analysis using CFIR was employed to explore the contextual factors impacting the implementation of a nationwide QIC and participating organizations. Data were used from document analysis and semi-structured interviews with participants from 30 participating healthcare organizations across Canada. Results: A variety of contextual factors emerged, which influenced the uptake of the QICs across different settings, including intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and process factors. This study illustrates how organizations can consider a multi-pronged, theory-driven approach to guide the evaluation of safety and quality improvement efforts. Conclusions: This study provides insights into contextual factors that impact the implementation of local safety projects involved in a larger QIC, which may serve as a template or blueprint for healthcare leaders in their efforts to guide the co-design, implementation and evaluation of safety and quality improvement efforts.

Corrigendum to "Exploring social movement concepts and actions in a knowledge uptake and sustainability context: A concept analysis" [Int J Nurs Sci 9/4 (2022) 411-421].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2022.08.003.].

Integrating Implementation Science in a Quality and Patient Safety Improvement Learning Collaborative: Essential Ingredients and Impact.

BACKGROUND: There is a current lack of research exploring the contextual factors of why and how quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) work. To this end, a mixed methods study was undertaken to improve our understanding of what works for whom and in what context among participants in a nationwide Canadian QIC. METHODS: The authors used a mixed methods approach consisting of a written survey and 30-to-45-minute telephone interviews with collaborative team members, coaches, and senior leaders of participating safety improvement project (SIP) organizations to identify the essential elements of an integrated approach involving implementation science/knowledge translation, quality improvement (QI), patient safety, and collaborative learning/networked approach to enhancing safety and quality and building implementation capabilities. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were analyzed by three team members using thematic analysis and development of an emergent coding schema. RESULTS: Four themes emerged as the essential elements: (1) integrating implementation science into the QI/patient safety learning collaborative; (2) reinforcing of and opening eyes to implementation science by an expert implementation specialist; (3) valuing the sense making and strategies shared by coaches; and (4) experiencing challenges to implementation amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Teams also reported improvements in teamwork and patient outcomes as a result of participating in the QIC. CONCLUSION: This study's findings provide deeper insight into the "essential ingredients" (expert implementation specialist, coaches) grounded in an integrated approach that drew from QI, patient safety, and implementation science. Organizations can use the key learnings on how best to implement quality and safety projects by leveraging the sense making of the expert implementation specialist and coaches in an integrated networked learning approach.

Exploring social movement concepts and actions in a knowledge uptake and sustainability context: A concept analysis.

Objectives: To share a concept analysis of social movement aimed at advancing its application to evidence uptake and sustainability in health-care. Methods: We applied Walker and Avant method to clarify the concept of social movement in the context of knowledge uptake and sustainability. Peer-reviewed and grey literature databases were systematically searched for relevant reports that described how social movement action led to evidence-based practice changes in health and community settings. Titles, abstracts and full texts were reviewed independently and in duplicate, resulting in 38 included articles. Results: Social movement action for knowledge uptake and sustainability can be defined as individuals, groups, or organizations that, as voluntary and intrinsically motivated change agents, mobilize around a common cause to improve outcomes through knowledge uptake and sustainability. The 10 defining attributes, three antecedents and three consequences that we identified are dynamic and interrelated, often mutually reinforcing each other to fortify various aspects of the social movement. Examples of defining attributes include an urgent need for action, collective action and collective identity. The concept analysis resulted in the development of the Social Movement Action Framework. Conclusions: Social movement action can provide a lens through which we view implementation science. Collective action and collective identity - concepts less frequently canvassed in implementation science literature - can lend insight into grassroots approaches to uptake and sustainability. Findings can also inform providers and change leaders on the practicalities of harnessing social movement action for real-world change initiatives. By mobilizing individuals, groups, or organizations through social movement approaches, they can engage as powered change agents and teams that impact the individual, organizational and health systems levels to facilitate knowledge uptake and sustainability.

Incident Management in Health Care: A Pan-Canadian Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 10% of patients experience a harmful patient safety incident in the hospital setting. Current evidence focuses on incident reporting, whereas little is known about how incidents are managed within organizations. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore processes, tools, and resources for incident management in Canadian health care organizations. METHODS: Qualitative focus groups were conducted with key stakeholders, representing clinicians, managers, executives, governors, patients, and families (n = 45). RESULTS: Qualitative data were thematically analyzed and presented as 3 themes: (1) variations in incident reporting and management; (2) simplification of the incident management process; and (3) need for leadership to support just culture and redefine harm. CONCLUSION: The study findings support and inform efforts to create a patient safety culture in Canadian and international health care organizations. There is a need to develop a standardized, accessible incident reporting and management system for use across health care sectors to promote continuous learning and improvement about patient safety.