Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review.

CONTEXT: An evidence base that addresses issues of complexity and context is urgently needed for large-system transformation (LST) and health care reform. Fundamental conceptual and methodological challenges also must be addressed. The Saskatchewan Ministry of Health in Canada requested a six-month synthesis project to guide four major policy development and strategy initiatives focused on patient- and family-centered care, primary health care renewal, quality improvement, and surgical wait lists. The aims of the review were to analyze examples of successful and less successful transformation initiatives, to synthesize knowledge of the underlying mechanisms, to clarify the role of government, and to outline options for evaluation. METHODS: We used realist review, whose working assumption is that a particular intervention triggers particular mechanisms of change. Mechanisms may be more or less effective in producing their intended outcomes, depending on their interaction with various contextual factors. We explain the variations in outcome as the interplay between context and mechanisms. We nested this analytic approach in a macro framing of complex adaptive systems (CAS). FINDINGS: Our rapid realist review identified five "simple rules" of LST that were likely to enhance the success of the target initiatives: (1) blend designated leadership with distributed leadership; (2) establish feedback loops; (3) attend to history; (4) engage physicians; and (5) include patients and families. These principles play out differently in different contexts affecting human behavior (and thereby contributing to change) through a wide range of different mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Realist review methodology can be applied in combination with a complex system lens on published literature to produce a knowledge synthesis that informs a prospective change effort in large-system transformation. A collaborative process engaging both research producers and research users contributes to local applications of universal principles and mid-range theories, as well as to a more robust knowledge base for applied research. We conclude with suggestions for the future development of synthesis and evaluation methods.

Using systems thinking to support clinical system transformation.

Purpose - The British Columbia Ministry of Health's Clinical Care Management initiative was used as a case study to better understand large-scale change (LSC) within BC's health system. Using a complex system framework, the purpose of this paper is to examine mechanisms that enable and constrain the implementation of clinical guidelines across various clinical settings. Design/methodology/approach - Researchers applied a general model of complex adaptive systems plus two specific conceptual frameworks (realist evaluation and system dynamics mapping) to define and study enablers and constraints. Focus group sessions and interviews with clinicians, executives, managers and board members were validated through an online survey. Findings - The functional themes for managing large-scale clinical change included: creating a context to prepare clinicians for health system transformation initiatives; promoting shared clinical leadership; strengthening knowledge management, strategic communications and opportunities for networking; and clearing pathways through the complexity of a multilevel, dynamic system. Research limitations/implications - The action research methodology was designed to guide continuing improvement of implementation. A sample of initiatives was selected; it was not intended to compare and contrast facilitators and barriers across all initiatives and regions. Similarly, evaluating the results or process of guideline implementation was outside the scope; the methods were designed to enable conversations at multiple levels - policy, management and practice - about how to improve implementation. The study is best seen as a case study of LSC, offering a possible model for replication by others and a tool to shape further dialogue. Practical implications - Recommended action-oriented strategies included engaging local champions; supporting local adaptation for implementation of clinical guidelines; strengthening local teams to guide implementation; reducing change fatigue; ensuring adequate resources; providing consistent communication especially for front-line care providers; and supporting local teams to demonstrate the clinical value of the guidelines to their colleagues. Originality/value - Bringing a complex systems perspective to clinical guideline implementation resulted in a clear understanding of the challenges involved in LSC.

Sustaining organizational culture change in health systems.

PURPOSE: The questions addressed by this review are: first, what are the guiding principles underlying efforts to stimulate sustained cultural change; second, what are the mechanisms by which these principles operate; and, finally, what are the contextual factors that influence the likelihood of these principles being effective? The paper aims to discuss these issues. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors conducted a literature review informed by rapid realist review methodology that examined how interventions interact with contexts and mechanisms to influence the sustainability of cultural change. Reference and expert panelists assisted in refining the research questions, systematically searching published and grey literature, and helping to identify interactions between interventions, mechanisms and contexts. FINDINGS: Six guiding principles were identified: align vision and action; make incremental changes within a comprehensive transformation strategy; foster distributed leadership; promote staff engagement; create collaborative relationships; and continuously assess and learn from change. These principles interact with contextual elements such as local power distributions, pre-existing values and beliefs and readiness to engage. Mechanisms influencing how these principles sustain cultural change include activation of a shared sense of urgency and fostering flexible levels of engagement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The principles identified in this review, along with the contexts and mechanisms that influence their effectiveness, are useful domains for policy and practice leaders to explore when grappling with cultural change. These principles are sufficiently broad to allow local flexibilities in adoption and application. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is the first study to adopt a realist approach for understanding how changes in organizational culture may be sustained. Through doing so, this review highlights the broad principles by which organizational action may be organized within enabling contextual settings.

A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: A realist synthesis attempts to provide policy makers with a transferable theory that suggests a certain program is more or less likely to work in certain respects, for particular subjects, in specific kinds of situations. Yet realist reviews can require considerable and sustained investment over time, which does not always suit the time-sensitive demands of many policy decisions. 'Rapid Realist Review' methodology (RRR) has been developed as a tool for applying a realist approach to a knowledge synthesis process in order to produce a product that is useful to policy makers in responding to time-sensitive and/or emerging issues, while preserving the core elements of realist methodology. METHODS: Using examples from completed RRRs, we describe key features of the RRR methodology, the resources required, and the strengths and limitations of the process. All aspects of an RRR are guided by both a local reference group, and a group of content experts. Involvement of knowledge users and external experts ensures both the usability of the review products, as well as their links to current practice. RESULTS: RRRs have proven useful in providing evidence for and making explicit what is known on a given topic, as well as articulating where knowledge gaps may exist. From the RRRs completed to date, findings broadly adhere to four (often overlapping) classifications: guiding rules for policy-making; knowledge quantification (i.e., the amount of literature available that identifies context, mechanisms, and outcomes for a given topic); understanding tensions/paradoxes in the evidence base; and, reinforcing or refuting beliefs and decisions taken. CONCLUSIONS: 'Traditional' realist reviews and RRRs have some key differences, which allow policy makers to apply each type of methodology strategically to maximize its utility within a particular local constellation of history, goals, resources, politics and environment. In particular, the RRR methodology is explicitly designed to engage knowledge users and review stakeholders to define the research questions, and to streamline the review process. In addition, results are presented with a focus on context-specific explanations for what works within a particular set of parameters rather than producing explanations that are potentially transferrable across contexts and populations. For policy makers faced with making difficult decisions in short time frames for which there is sufficient (if limited) published/research and practice-based evidence available, RRR provides a practical, outcomes-focused knowledge synthesis method.