Built to last? Barriers and facilitators of healthcare program sustainability: a systematic integrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators associated with the sustainability of implemented and evaluated improvement programs in healthcare delivery systems. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Six academic databases were searched to identify relevant peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between July 2011 and June 2022. Studies were included if they reported on healthcare program sustainability and explicitly identified barriers to, and facilitators of, sustainability. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic integrative review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Study quality was appraised using Hawker's Quality Assessment Tool. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A team of reviewers screened eligible studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted the data independently using a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and mapped to the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF). Frequency counts of reported barriers/facilitators were performed across the included studies. RESULTS: Of the 124 studies included in this review, almost half utilised qualitative designs (n = 52; 41.9%) and roughly one third were conducted in the USA (n = 43; 34.7%). Few studies (n = 29; 23.4%) reported on program sustainability beyond 5 years of program implementation and only 16 of them (55.2%) defined sustainability. Factors related to the ISF categories of inner setting (n = 99; 79.8%), process (n = 99; 79.8%) and intervention characteristics (n = 72; 58.1%) were most frequently reported. Leadership/support (n = 61; 49.2%), training/support/supervision (n = 54; 43.5%) and staffing/turnover (n = 50; 40.3%) were commonly identified barriers or facilitators of sustainability across included studies. Forty-six (37.1%) studies reported on the outer setting category: funding (n = 26; 56.5%), external leadership by stakeholders (n = 16; 34.8%), and socio-political context (n = 14; 30.4%). Eight studies (6.5%) reported on discontinued programs, with factors including funding and resourcing, poor fit, limited planning, and intervention complexity contributing to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the importance of taking into consideration the inner setting, processes, intervention characteristics and outer setting factors when sustaining healthcare programs, and the need for long-term program evaluations. There is a need to apply consistent definitions and implementation frameworks across studies to strengthen evidence in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e018568 .

Does an electronic pathology ordering system change the volume and pattern of routine testing in hospital? An interrupted time series analysis.

AIMS: Identifying and reducing low-value care is a vital issue in Australia, with pathology test ordering a common focus in this field. This study builds on previous research and aimed to quantify the impact of the implementation of an electronic ordering (e-ordering) system on the volume of pathology testing, compared with manual (paper based) ordering. METHODS: An audit and analysis of pathology test data were conducted, using an interrupted time series design to investigate the impact of the e-ordering system on pathology ordering patterns. All medical and surgical adult inpatients at a tertiary referral hospital in Newcastle, Australia, were included over a 3-year period. RESULTS: Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in the volume of orders due to the implementation of the e-ordering system. There was a slight increase in the aggregated volume (tests per admission and tests per bed day) of tests ordered across the entire study period, reflecting a secular trend. CONCLUSIONS: Despite providing greater visibility and tracking of orders, we conclude that the implementation of an e-ordering system does not, in and of itself, reduce ordering volume. Efforts to identify and reduce low-value care will require intentional effort and specifically designed educational programmes or hard-wired algorithms.

How can the healthcare system deliver sustainable performance? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing health costs, demand and patient multimorbidity challenge the sustainability of healthcare systems. These challenges persist and have been amplified by the global pandemic. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop an understanding of how the sustainable performance of healthcare systems (SPHS) has been conceptualised, defined and measured. DESIGN: Scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and editorials published from database inception to February 2021. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Ovid Medline, and snowballing techniques. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included articles that discussed key focus concepts of SPHS: (1) definitions, (2) measurement, (3) identified challenges, (4) identified solutions for improvement and (5) scaling successful solutions to maintain SPHS. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After title/abstract screening, full-text articles were reviewed, and relevant information extracted and synthesised under the five focus concepts. RESULTS: Of 142 included articles, 38 (27%) provided a definition of SPHS. Definitions were based mainly on financial sustainability, however, SPHS was also more broadly conceptualised and included acceptability to patients and workforce, resilience through adaptation, and rapid absorption of evidence and innovations. Measures of SPHS were also predominantly financial, but recent articles proposed composite measures that accounted for financial, social and health outcomes. Challenges to achieving SPHS included the increasingly complex patient populations, limited integration because of entrenched fragmented systems and siloed professional groups, and the ongoing translational gaps in evidence-to-practice and policy-to-practice. Improvement strategies for SPHS included developing appropriate workplace cultures, direct community and consumer involvement, and adoption of evidence-based practice and technologies. There was also a strong identified need for long-term monitoring and evaluations to support adaptation of healthcare systems and to anticipate changing needs where possible. CONCLUSIONS: To implement lasting change and to respond to new challenges, we need context-relevant definitions and frameworks, and robust, flexible, and feasible measures to support the long-term sustainability and performance of healthcare systems.