"Horses for Courses": Comment on "Translating Evidence Into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multi-Faceted Implementation Strategies - Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?".

This commentary considers the vexed question of whether or not we should be spending time and resources on using multifaceted interventions to undertake implementation of evidence in healthcare. A review of systematic reviews has suggested that simple interventions may be just as effective as those taking a multifaceted approach. Taking cognisance of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework this commentary takes account of the evidence, context and facilitation factors in undertaking implementation. It concludes that a 'horses for courses' approach is necessary meaning that the specific implementation approach should be selected to fit the implementation task in hand whether it be a single or multifaceted approach and reviewed on an individual basis.

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.

Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC).

BACKGROUND: The English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural 'test bed' for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide in-depth comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an interpretative forum. DISCUSSION: The idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g., Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement.

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.

Tracing and identifying the impact of evidence-use of a modified pipeline model.

AIM: This paper opens up a discussion about effective ways of tracing and identifying impact of evidence implementation in the field of nursing, through the use of Nutley et al.'s concept of an impact continuum, and Glasziou's Pipeline Model. APPROACH: Work to date on improving and evaluating the use of evidence in health care settings has tended to focus on evidence implementation as an endpoint or entity, often seen and measured in terms of change in practice. However, the direct application of evidence to practice is not straightforward. Glasziou's Pipeline Model of the different stages through which evidence flows, in the process of implementation, is critically reviewed in relation to five key issues: the type of evidence entering the pipeline; the linearity of the model; leakages and blockages in the pipeline; levels of impact; and impact measurement. The Pipeline Model is then combined with Nutley et al.'s continuum of impacts in order to present a Modified Pipeline Model. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The Modified Pipeline Model enables evidence implementation to be viewed as a process rather than an entity in itself, which in turn enables longitudinal assessment of barriers and facilitators to evidence "flow." By flow we mean the way in which evidence is transferred from reporting or publication stages to patient outcomes. It also allows identification of the multiple impacts that can occur through the process of evidence implementation, which may be impact on the way the nurse thinks about practice to the healing rate of a leg ulcer. Finally, the Modified Model raises the issue of impacts beyond the pipeline, that is, those outcomes for patients that result from adherence to evidence-based care. This Modified Pipeline Model thus has the potential to support individuals and organizations in enhanced implementation planning, evaluation and management.

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.

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.

Clinical governance and the learning organization.

AIM: This paper compares and contrasts clinical governance and organizational learning. BACKGROUND: Clinical governance represents one of the most significant policy developments in recent years. It places on all health care delivery organizations a statutory duty to develop the systems, standards and processes necessary to improve health care quality and manage risk. At the same time, many health care organizations are seeking new ways in which learning can be retained and deployed more widely within the organization (organizational learning). KEY ISSUES: Both approaches emphasize cultural changes as essential underpinnings to quality improvement. However, the two approaches also differ fundamentally in their logic of action. Clinical governance is essentially 'top down', being built around formal standards, established procedures, and regular monitoring and reporting. In contrast, organizational learning emphasizes 'bottom up' changes in values, beliefs and motivations in such a way that learning and change are prioritized. The challenge for managers and practitioners lies in seeking a creative tension between these two contrasting styles of organizational change.