Successful Healthcare Improvements From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence): simple rules to guide practice and research.

BACKGROUND: Evidence translation and improvement research indicate that healthcare contexts are complex systems, characterized by uncertainty and surprise, which often defy orchestrated intervention attempts. This article reflects on the implications of complexity on attempts to translate evidence, and on a newly published framework for Successful Healthcare Improvements From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence). DISCUSSION: SHIFT-Evidence positions the challenge of evidence translation within the complex and evolving context of healthcare, and recognizes the wider issues practitioners routinely face. It is empirically grounded, and designed to be comprehensive, practically relevant and actionable. SHIFT-evidence is summarized by three principles designed to be intuitive and memorable: 'act scientifically and pragmatically'; 'embrace complexity'; and 'engage and empower'. Common challenges and strategies to overcome them are summarized in 12 'simple rules' that provide actionable guidance. CONCLUSION: SHIFT-Evidence provides a practical tool to guide practice and research of evidence translation and improvement within complex dynamic healthcare settings. Implications are that improvement initiatives and research study designs need to take into account the unique initial conditions in each local setting; conduct needs to respond to unpredictable effects and address dependent problems; and evaluation needs to be sensitive to evolving priorities and the emergent range of activities required to achieve improvement.

Translating evidence in complex systems: a comparative review of implementation and improvement frameworks.

PURPOSE: An increasing number of implementation and improvement frameworks seek to describe and explain how change is made in healthcare. This paper aims to explore how existing frameworks conceptualize the influence of complexity in translating evidence into practice in healthcare. DATA SOURCES: A database was interrogated using a search strategy to identify publications that present frameworks and models for implementation and improvement. STUDY SELECTION: Ten popular implementation and improvement frameworks were purposively selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Comparative analysis was conducted using an analytical framework derived from SHIFT-Evidence, a framework that conceptualizes complexity in implementation and improvement initiatives. RESULTS: Collectively the frameworks accounted for key concepts of translating evidence in complex systems: understanding the uniqueness of each setting; the interdependency of practices/processes and the need to respond to unpredictable events and emergent learning. The analysis highlighted heterogeneity of the frameworks in their focus on different aspects of complexity. Differences include the extent to which problems and solutions are investigated or assumed; whether endpoints are defined as the uptake of interventions or achievement of goals; and emphasis placed on fixed-term interventions versus continual improvement. None of the individual frameworks reviewed incorporated all the implications of complexity, as described by SHIFT-Evidence. CONCLUSION: This research identifies the differences in how implementation and improvement frameworks consider complexity, suggesting that SHIFT-Evidence offers a more comprehensive overview compared with the other frameworks. The similarity of concepts across the frameworks suggests growing consensus in the literature, with SHIFT-Evidence providing a conceptual bridge between the implementation and improvement fields.

Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring patients benefit from the latest medical and technical advances remains a major challenge, with rational-linear and reductionist approaches to translating evidence into practice proving inefficient and ineffective. Complexity thinking, which emphasises interconnectedness and unpredictability, offers insights to inform evidence translation theories and strategies. Drawing on detailed insights into complex micro-systems, this research aimed to advance empirical and theoretical understanding of the reality of making and sustaining improvements in complex healthcare systems. METHODS: Using analytical auto-ethnography, including documentary analysis and literature review, we assimilated learning from 5 years of observation of 22 evidence translation projects (UK). We used a grounded theory approach to develop substantive theory and a conceptual framework. Results were interpreted using complexity theory and 'simple rules' were identified reflecting the practical strategies that enhanced project progress. RESULTS: The framework for Successful Healthcare Improvement From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence) positions the challenge of evidence translation within the dynamic context of the health system. SHIFT-Evidence is summarised by three strategic principles, namely (1) 'act scientifically and pragmatically' - knowledge of existing evidence needs to be combined with knowledge of the unique initial conditions of a system, and interventions need to adapt as the complex system responds and learning emerges about unpredictable effects; (2) 'embrace complexity' - evidence-based interventions only work if related practices and processes of care within the complex system are functional, and evidence-translation efforts need to identify and address any problems with usual care, recognising that this typically includes a range of interdependent parts of the system; and (3) 'engage and empower' - evidence translation and system navigation requires commitment and insights from staff and patients with experience of the local system, and changes need to align with their motivations and concerns. Twelve associated 'simple rules' are presented to provide actionable guidance to support evidence translation and improvement in complex systems. CONCLUSION: By recognising how agency, interconnectedness and unpredictability influences evidence translation in complex systems, SHIFT-Evidence provides a tool to guide practice and research. The 'simple rules' have potential to provide a common platform for academics, practitioners, patients and policymakers to collaborate when intervening to achieve improvements in healthcare.

Identifying the challenges and facilitators of implementing a COPD care bundle.

BACKGROUND: Care bundles have been shown to improve outcomes, reduce hospital readmissions and reduce length of hospital stay; therefore increasing the speed of uptake and delivery of care bundles should be a priority in order to deliver more timely improvements and consistent high-quality care. Previous studies have detailed the difficulties of obtaining full compliance to bundle elements but few have described the underlying reasons for this. In order to improve future implementation this paper investigates the challenges encountered by clinical teams implementing a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care bundle and describes actions taken to overcome these challenges. METHODS: An initial retrospective documentary analysis of data from seven clinical implementation teams was undertaken to review the challenges faced by the clinical teams. Three focus groups with healthcare professionals and managers explored solutions to these challenges developed during the project. RESULTS: Documentary analysis identified 28 challenges which directly impacted implementation of the COPD care bundle within five themes; staffing, infrastructure, process, use of improvement methodology and patient and public involvement. Focus groups revealed that the five most significant challenges for all groups were: staff too busy, staff shortages, lack of staff engagement, added workload of the bundle and patient coding issues. The participants shared facilitating factors used to overcome issues including: shifting perceptions to improve engagement, further education sessions to increase staff participation and gaining buy-in from managers through payment frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: Maximising the impact of a care bundle relies on its successful and timely implementation. Teams implementing the COPD care bundle encountered challenges that were common to all teams and sites. Understanding and learning from the challenges faced by previous endeavours and identifying the facilitators to overcoming these barriers provides an opportunity to mitigate issues that waste time and resources, and ensures that training can be tailored to the anticipated challenges.

Pulmonary rehabilitation following hospitalisation for acute exacerbation of COPD: referrals, uptake and adherence.

RATIONALE: Several randomised controlled trials support the provision of early pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following hospitalisation for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). However, there is little real-world data regarding uptake, adherence and completion rates. METHODS: An audit was conducted to prospectively document referral, uptake, adherence and completion rates for early post-hospitalisation outpatient PR in Northwest London over a 12-month period. RESULTS: Out of 448 hospital discharges for AECOPD, 90 referrals for post-hospitalisation PR were received. Only 43 patients received and completed PR (9.6% of all hospital discharges) despite a fully commissioned PR service. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the strong evidence base, there are poor referral and uptake rates for early outpatient PR following hospitalisation for AECOPD, with only a small proportion of the intended target population receiving this intervention.

Improving patient and project outcomes using interorganisational innovation, collaboration and co-design.

Background Common mental disorders (CMDs) are a leading cause of disability. The Department of Health has launched a large-scale initiative to improve access to evidence-based psychological treatments, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), through the Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) programme. Access to IAPT services by black and minority ethnic (BME) communities is lower than for other groups. Setting The London Borough of Ealing in west London; a diverse borough with areas of high BME population and relatively high deprivation. Aim To compare the outcomes of two linked quality improvement (QI) projects undertaken by Ealing Mental Health and Wellbeing Service (MHWBS), both with the same aim of increasing access to talking therapies for BME communities. Methods Application of QI methodologies supported by the NIHR CLAHRC for northwest London in two different settings in Ealing. One, the 'Southall project', was set within a wider initiative for collaborative improvements and shared learning (the Southall Initiative for Integrated Care) in an ethnically diverse area of Ealing; it was undertaken between April 2010 and September 2011. The second, 'the Ealing project', operated in the two other Ealing localities that did not have the advantage of a broader initiative for collaborative improvements; it was undertaken between April 2011 and September 2012. Results Comparison of the monthly referral rates of BME patients (standardised per 10 000 general practitioner (GP)-registered patients) show that the Southall project was more effective in increasing referrals from BME communities than the Ealing project. Conclusion Broad local participation and ownership in the project design of the Southall project may explain why it was more effective in achieving its aims than the Ealing project which lacked these ownership-creating mechanisms.

Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement.

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL). Data from project teams' responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as 'engaged,' 'partially engaged' and 'non-engaged.' Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a 'diversity of opinion' measure was derived to assess response variance over time. Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as 'engaged,' six 'partially engaged,' and seven as 'non-engaged.' Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness. The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams' views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM.

Acceptability and necessity of HIV and other blood-borne virus testing in a psychiatric setting.

Studies in North America and Europe indicate that the prevalence of blood-borne viruses (BBVs) is elevated in individuals with severe mental illness; there are no comparable data for the UK. We offered routine testing for HIV, and hepatitis B and C in an inner-London in-patient psychiatric unit as a service improvement. Of the patients approached 83% had mental capacity to provide informed consent for testing and 66% of patients offered testing accepted. Although it was not our objective to establish the prevalence of BBVs, 18% of patients had serological evidence of a current or previous BBV infection. We found that offering routine testing in an in-patient psychiatric setting is both practical and acceptable to patients.