Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the trial of a novel intervention, Supporting Policy In health with evidence from Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT). It examines (1) the feasibility of delivering this kind of programme in practice; (2) its acceptability to participants; (3) the impact of the programme on the capacity of policy agencies to engage with research; and (4) the engagement with and use of research by policy agencies. METHODS: SPIRIT was a multifaceted, highly tailored, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, trial involving six health policy agencies in Sydney, Australia. Agencies were randomly allocated to one of three start dates to receive the 1-year intervention programme. SPIRIT included audit, feedback and goal setting; a leadership programme; staff training; the opportunity to test systems to facilitate research use in policies; and exchange with researchers. Outcome measures were collected at each agency every 6 months for 30 months. RESULTS: Participation in SPIRIT was associated with significant increases in research use capacity at staff and agency levels. Staff reported increased confidence in research use skills, and agency leaders reported more extensive systems and structures in place to support research use. Self-report data suggested there was also an increase in tactical research use among agency staff. Given the relatively small numbers of participating agencies and the complexity of their contexts, findings suggest it is possible to effect change in the way policy agencies approach the use of research. This is supported by the responses on the other trial measures; while these were not statistically significant, on 18 of the 20 different measures used, the changes observed were consistent with the hypothesised intervention effect (that is, positive impacts). CONCLUSIONS: As an early test of an innovative approach, SPIRIT has demonstrated that it is possible to increase research engagement and use in policy agencies. While more work is needed to establish the replicability and generalisability of these findings, this trial suggests that building staff skills and organisational structures may be effective in increasing evidence use.

Hospital board oversight of quality and patient safety: a narrative review and synthesis of recent empirical research.

CONTEXT: Recurring problems with patient safety have led to a growing interest in helping hospitals' governing bodies provide more effective oversight of the quality and safety of their services. National directives and initiatives emphasize the importance of action by boards, but the empirical basis for informing effective hospital board oversight has yet to receive full and careful review. METHODS: This article presents a narrative review of empirical research to inform the debate about hospital boards' oversight of quality and patient safety. A systematic and comprehensive search identified 122 papers for detailed review. Much of the empirical work appeared in the last ten years, is from the United States, and employs cross-sectional survey methods. FINDINGS: Recent empirical studies linking board composition and processes with patient outcomes have found clear differences between high- and low-performing hospitals, highlighting the importance of strong and committed leadership that prioritizes quality and safety and sets clear and measurable goals for improvement. Effective oversight is also associated with well-informed and skilled board members. External factors (such as regulatory regimes and the publication of performance data) might also have a role in influencing boards, but detailed empirical work on these is scant. CONCLUSIONS: Health policy debates recognize the important role of hospital boards in overseeing patient quality and safety, and a growing body of empirical research has sought to elucidate that role. This review finds a number of areas of guidance that have some empirical support, but it also exposes the relatively inchoate nature of the field. Greater theoretical and methodological development is required if we are to secure more evidence-informed governance systems and practices that can contribute to safer care.

Health research, development and innovation in England from 1988 to 2013: from research production to knowledge mobilization.

This paper presents a critical analysis of the development of government policy and practice on health research, development and innovation over the last 25 years - starting from the publication of a seminal report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in 1988. We first set out to map and analyse the trends in ideas and thinking that have shaped research policy and practice over this period, and to put the development of health research, development and innovation in the wider context of health system reforms and changes. We argue that though this has been a transformative period for health research, rather less progress has been made in the domains of development and innovation, and we offer an analysis of why this might be the case. Drawing on advances in our understanding about how research informs practice, we then make the case for a more integrative model of research, development and innovation. This leads us to conclude that recent experiments with Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and Academic Health Science Centres and Networks offer some important lessons for future policy directions.

The relationship between organizational culture and performance in acute hospitals.

This paper examines the relationship between senior management team culture and organizational performance in English acute hospitals (NHS Trusts) over three time periods between 2001/2002 and 2007/2008. We use a validated culture rating instrument, the Competing Values Framework, to measure senior management team culture. Organizational performance is assessed using a wide range of routinely collected indicators. We examine the associations between organizational culture and performance using ordered probit and multinomial logit models. We find that organizational culture varies across hospitals and over time, and this variation is at least in part associated in consistent and predictable ways with a variety of organizational characteristics and routine measures of performance. Moreover, hospitals are moving towards more competitive culture archetypes which mirror the current policy context, though with a stronger blend of cultures. The study provides evidence for a relationship between culture and performance in hospital settings.

A creative approach to the development of an agenda for knowledge utilization: outputs from the 11th international knowledge utilization colloquium (KU 11).

A group of researchers and practitioners interested in advancing knowledge utilization met as a colloquium in Belfast (KU 11) and used a "world café" approach to exploit the social capital and shared understanding built up over previous events to consider the research and practice agenda. We considered three key areas of relevance to knowledge use: (1) understanding the nature of research use, influence and impact; (2) blended and collaborative approaches to knowledge production and use; and (3) supporting sustainability and spread of evidence-informed innovations. The approach enabled the development of artifacts that reflected the three areas and these were analyzed using a creative hermeneutic approach. The themes that emerged and which are outlined in this commentary are not mutually exclusive. There was much overlap in the discussions and therefore of the themes, reflecting the complex nature of knowledge translation work. The agenda that has emerged from KU 11 also reflects the participatory and creative approach in which the meeting was structured and focused, and therefore emphasizes the processual, relational and contingent nature of some of the challenges we face. The past 20 years has seen an explosion in activity around understanding KU, and we have learned much about the difficulties. Whilst the agenda for the next decade may be becoming clearer, colloquia such as KU 11, using creative and engaging approaches, have a key role to play in dissecting, articulating and sharing that agenda. In this way, we also build an ever-expanding international community that is dedicated to working towards increasing the chances of success for better patient care.

The struggle to improve patient care in the face of professional boundaries.

Professional boundaries make inter-professional communication, collaboration and teamwork more challenging and can jeopardise the provision of safe, high quality patient care. This in-depth interview study conducted in three UK acute hospital organisations in 2003-2004 explored how professional boundaries affected efforts to improve routine practice by acute pain services (small specialist teams set up to drive improvements in postoperative pain management through education, training, standard-setting and audit). The study found that many anaesthetists and to a lesser extent nursing staff saw postoperative pain management as a new and unjustified addition to their professional role. Professional identities and strong fears about the risks of treatments meant that health professionals resisted attempts by the acute pain services to standardise practice and to change medical and nursing roles in relation to postoperative pain management. Efforts by the acute pain services to improve practice were further hindered by inter-professional boundaries (between the medical and nursing professions) and by intra-professional boundaries (within the medical and nursing professions). The inter-professional boundaries led to the acute pain services devoting a substantial part of their time to performing a 'go-between' function between nurses and doctors. The intra-professional boundaries hindered collaborative working among doctors and limited the influence that the acute pain service nurses could have on improving the practice of other nurses. Further work is needed to address the underlying fears that can lead to resistance around role changes and to develop effective strategies to minimise the impact of professional boundaries on patient care.

An exploration of the roles of nurse managers in evidence-based practice implementation.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, nurses face ongoing difficulties in making a reality of evidence-based practice. Existing studies suggest that nurse managers (NMs) should play a key role in leading and facilitating evidence-based practice, but the nature of this role has not yet been fully explored or articulated. This is one of the first studies to investigate the roles of NMs in evidence-based practice implementation. METHODOLOGY AND METHODS: Using a case study approach the study explores five propositions in relation to the NMs' potential evidence-based practice role and the extent to which their attitudes, knowledge, and skills support such a role. In doing so, it draws on interviews (n= 51), documentary analysis and observational data. FINDINGS: Data analysis reveals that the role of NMs in facilitating evidence-based practice is under-articulated, largely passive and currently limited by competing demands. Progress in implementing evidence-based practice in the case study sites is largely explained by factors other than the role played by NMs. As such, the findings expose significant discrepancies between NMs' actual roles and those espoused in the literature as being necessary. Contextual factors are important and it is clear that the role of the contemporary NM places considerable emphasis on management and administration to the detriment of clinical practice concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals that NMs are only involved in evidence-based practice implementation in a passive role, not the full engagement described in the literature as being necessary. This study adds previously lacking detail of the roles of NMs. It elucidates why exhortations to NMs to become more involved in evidence-based practice implementation are ineffective without action to address the problems identified.

Understanding culture and culture management in the English NHS: a comparison of professional and patient perspectives.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The growing interest in patient-focused health care in the National Health System (NHS), especially in the wake of high-profile failures in clinical practice, has underlined the need to involve patients in the design and evaluation of organizational change management programmes at the local level. This includes an evaluation of the relevance of culture and how culture might be assessed and managed in the delivery of high-quality and safe care. The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast the perspectives of health care professionals and patient representatives on purposeful attempts to manage culture change in the English NHS. METHODS: We used the mixed approach, but with more quantitative than qualitative data. A postal questionnaire survey of clinical governance leads and patient representatives from 276 NHS trusts was followed up with a focus group discussion of eight of the survey participants and semi-structured interviews with 18, including health care professionals and patient representatives from various organizations. We used spss to analyse the survey data and Atlas.ti to analyse the qualitative data. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical governance leads and patient representatives considered culture management and change to be integral to quality and safety improvement efforts. However, clinical governance leads were more positive than patient representatives about anticipated results from ongoing efforts to manage culture change at the local level. Further, in spite of general agreement on various attributes for culture assessment efforts, there was a striking difference in the level of importance respondents attached to blame free (more important to clinical governance managers) and customization (more important to patient representatives).

From cultural cohesion to rules and competition: the trajectory of senior management culture in English NHS hospitals, 2001-2008.

OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in senior management culture in English NHS hospitals between 2001 and 2008. DESIGN: Longitudinal study comprising cross-sectional surveys of board levels managers at three time-points using a validated culture measurement instrument - the Competing Values Framework. SETTING: English NHS hospital trusts. MAIN OUTCOMES: There has been a decline in 'Clan' and an increase in more competitive 'Rational' cultures among senior management teams in NHS hospital trusts during the period 2001-2008. CONCLUSIONS: Government policy for the NHS has espoused the desirability of competition, particularly since 2002. Our data suggest that corresponding changes in the cultures of senior management teams in NHS hospital trusts is beginning to occur, with the expectation that these organizations will pursue more competitive strategies.

Delivering feedback on learning organization characteristics--using a Learning Practice Inventory.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Learning is recognized to be at the heart of the quality improvement process in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the challenge will be how to ensure that learning becomes embedded within the NHS culture. The aim of this study is to identify a robust feedback process and format in which practices could receive data on their responses to a Learning Practice Inventory (a diagnostic instrument designed to identify a practice's capacity for collective learning and change). METHOD: Five practices volunteered to test the instrument, and it was distributed to all members of the primary care team. A process was worked through to identify different formats for presenting scores within and between practices. The preferred method of data presentation was sought, and an evaluation gathered information on the preferred form of feedback, the usefulness of the data, the clarity of the questions and the level of interest in receiving further information. RESULTS: Eighty-five staff from five practices completed the questionnaire, and 61 individuals completed the evaluation forms. In most cases, there was a spread of scores by staff within practices and across the scale of 1-10. Medians were clustered at the learning practice end for all five practices. However, despite this skew, there were sometimes quite large differences between practices in their median scores. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that a robust feedback process on collective capacity for learning and change can be identified that is useful and feasible. A key implication is that some form of educational support is required, and this work will take place as part of an ongoing programme of research by the authors.

The Learning Practice Inventory: diagnosing and developing Learning Practices in the UK.

BACKGROUND AND SETTING: This paper outlines the development of a diagnostic tool to help Primary Care general practitioner (GP) Practices diagnose the extent to which they are developing effective techniques for collective learning and if their Practice culture supports innovation. This project is undertaken by the University of St Andrews and NHS Education for Scotland. METHODS: Based on Learning Organization and Organizational Learning theory, and using a modified Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale, the Learning Practice Inventory (LPI) identifies attitudes, behaviours, processes, systems and organizational arrangements associated with being a Learning Practice. The LPI is a self-assessment, fixed-choice, survey-feedback tool that surveys all Practice members. RESULTS: The survey-feedback tool empowers Practice members to view, assess and prioritize the developments they wish to make collectively to Practice life. The LPI assumes complexity and non-linearity in change processes, used longitudinally it tracks the impact of change on Practice life through time. Practitioners and Practices involved in its development give favourable feedback on the tool, and its potential usefulness. DISCUSSION: This contributes to our wider understanding in three main ways: first, it applies the ideas of Learning Organizations and Organizational Learning to health care settings. Second, as a practical advance, the tool assumes complexity, non-linearity and systemic knock-on effects during change in Primary Care. Third, it offers practitioners who work together the opportunity to share knowledge and learning in practical ways helping them to change by themselves and for themselves and their patients.

Does organisational culture influence prescribing in care homes for older people? A new direction for research.

Prescribing in care homes for older people has been the focus of much research and debate because of inappropriate drug choice and poor monitoring practices. In the US, this has led to the implementation of punitive and adversarial regulation that has sought to improve the quality of prescribing in this healthcare setting. This approach is unique to the US and has not been replicated elsewhere. The literature has revealed that there are limitations as to how much can be achieved with regulation that is externally imposed (an 'external factor'). Other influences, which may be categorised as 'internal factors' operating within the care home (e.g. patient, physician and care-home characteristics), also affect prescribing. However, these internal and external factors do not appear to affect prescribing uniformly, and poor prescribing practices in care homes continue to be observed. One intangible factor that has received little attention in this area of healthcare is that of organisational culture. This factor has been linked to quality and performance within other health organisations. Consideration of organisational culture within care-home settings may help to understand what drives prescribing decisions in this particularly vulnerable patient group and thus provide new directions for future strategies to promote quality care.

Working within and beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to make systematic reviews more useful to healthcare managers and policy makers.

Participants in the Cochrane Collaboration conduct and periodically update systematic reviews that address the question, "What works?" for healthcare interventions. The Cochrane Library makes available quality-appraised systematic reviews that address this question. No coordinated effort has been undertaken to conduct and periodically update systematic reviews that address the other types of questions asked by healthcare managers and policy makers, to adapt existing reviews to highlight decision-relevant information (including the factors that may affect assessments of a review's local applicability) or to facilitate their retrieval through a "one-stop shopping" portal. Researchers interested in evaluating new methodological developments, health services and policy researchers interested in conducting and adapting systematic reviews, and research funders all have a role to play in making systematic reviews more useful for healthcare managers and policy makers.

Doctor-manager relationships in the United States and the United Kingdom.

In many developed countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, the relationships between doctors and hospital managers are strained. The purposes of this article are to examine survey data from the United States and the United Kingdom on doctor-manager relationships and to identify the sources of strain common to both countries as well as those particular to each country's health system. The two countries exhibited many similarities. A very high proportion of respondents from both countries identified external factors-such as governmental budget cuts, pressure from third parties to increase physicians' workload, and the turbulence of the policy environment-as important barriers to improving doctor-manager relationships. Other common sources of strain were concerns over resource availability and the relative power of doctors and managers. Sources of relationship tension particular to each country were also found. Substantial divergence of opinion was expressed with respect to internal factors that affect doctor-manager relationships. Respondents from the United States were more negative than those from the United Kingdom in their ratings of teamwork and communication between doctors and managers, and they were also less likely to have confidence in the medical staff. Respondents from the United Kingdom were more likely to believe that hospital management is driven more by financial than clinical priorities. Managers can implement several strategies to improve doctor-manager relationships, including greater organizational transparency in decision making; more frequent communication between managers and doctors; and more physician involvement in decision making, especially with regard to important resource-related decisions, and in organizational governance.

Introducing the Learning Practice--I. The characteristics of Learning Organizations in Primary Care.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the first of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. Here we introduce the notion of the Learning Practice (LP) and outline the characteristics and nature of an LP, exploring cultural and structural factors in detail. METHODS: Drawing upon both theoretical concepts and empirical research into LOs in health care settings, the format, focus and feasibility of an LP is explored. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of LPs include flatter team-based structures that prioritize learning and empowered change, involve staff and are open to suggestions and innovation. Potential benefits include: timely changes in service provision that are realistic, acceptable, sustainable, and owned at practitioner level; smoother interprofessional working; and fast flowing informal communication backed up by records of key decisions to facilitate permanent learning. Critical comment on potential pitfalls and practical difficulties highlights features of the present system that hinder development: tightly defined roles; political behaviours and individual-oriented support systems; plus the ongoing difficulties involved in tolerating errors (whilst people learn). This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in the area in three main ways. First, by locating Government's desires to create health systems capable of learning within the theoretical and empirical evidence on LOs. Second, it suggests what an LP could be like and how its culture and structures might benefit both staff and patients in addition to meeting externally driven reforms and health priorities. Third, it extends the application of LO concepts to the health care sector locating the principles in bottom-up change.

Introducing the Learning Practice--II. Becoming a Learning Practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the second of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. METHODS: Based on a theoretical and empirical review of available evidence, here we introduce the process by which a Practice can start to become a Learning Practice (LP). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Steps taken to enhance both individual and organizational learning begin the process of moving towards a learning culture. Attention is given to the routines that can be established within the practice to make learning systematically an integral part of what the practice does. This involves focusing on all three of single-, double- and triple-loop learning. Within the paper, a distinction is made between individual, collective and organizational learning. We argue that individual and collective learning may be easier to achieve than organizational learning as processes and systems already exist within the Health Service to facilitate personal learning and development with some opportunities for collective and integrated learning and working. However, although organizational learning needs to spread beyond the LP to the wider Health Service to inform future training courses, policy and decision-making, there currently seem to be few processes by which this might be achieved. This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in three main ways. First, by reviewing existing theoretical and empirical material on LOs in health care settings it provides both an informed vision and a set of practical guidelines on the ways in which a Practice could start to effect its own regime of learning, innovation and change. Second, it highlights the paucity of opportunities individual general practitioner practices have to share their learning more widely. Thirdly, it adds to the evidence base on how to apply LO theory and activate learning cultures in health care settings.

Introducing the Learning Practice--III. Leadership, empowerment, protected time and reflective practice as core contextual conditions.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the third of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. METHODS: Here we provide a systematic literature review of contextual factors that either play a key role in providing a facilitative context for a Learning Practice or manifest themselves as barriers to any Practice's attempts to develop a learning culture. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Core contextual conditions are identified as, first, the requirement for strong and visionary leadership. Leaders who support and develop others, ask challenging questions, are willing to be learners themselves, see possibilities and make things happen, facilitate learning environments. The second core condition is the involvement and empowerment of staff where changes grow from the willing participation of all concerned. The third prerequisite is the setting-aside of times and places for learning and reflection. This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in three main ways. First, by highlighting the local contextual issues that are most likely to impact on the success or failure of a Practice's attempts to work towards a learning culture. Second, by demonstrating that the very same factors can either help or hinder depending on how they are manifest and played out in context. Third, it adds to the evidence available to support the case for LOs in health care settings.