Intra-professional dynamics in translational health research: the perspective of social scientists

Mobilizing pilot-based evidence for the spread and sustainability of innovations in healthcare: The role of innovation intermediaries

An endemic challenge facing healthcare systems around the world is how to spread innovation more widely and sustainably. A common response to this challenge involves conducting pilot implementation studies to generate evidence of the innovation's benefits. However, despite the key role that such studies play in the local adoption of innovation, their contribution to the wider spread and sustainability of innovation is relatively under-researched and under-theorized. In this paper we examine this contribution through an empirical examination of the experiences of an innovation intermediary organization in the English NHS (National Health Service). We find that their work in mobilizing pilot-based evidence involves three main strands; configuring to context; transitioning evidence; and managing the transition. Through this analysis we contribute to theory by showing how the agency afforded by intermediary roles can support the effective transitioning of pilot-based evidence across different phases in the innovation journey, and across different occupational groups, and can thus help to create a positive feedback loop from localized early implementers of an innovation to later more widespread adoption and sustainability. Based on these findings, we develop insights on the reasons for the unnecessary repetition of pilots - so-called 'pilotitis'- and offer policy recommendations on how to enhance the role of pilots in the wider spread and sustainability of innovation.

In which context and for whom can interventions improve leadership of surgical trainees, surgeons and surgical teams and why: a realist review protocol

Background

Improving effective leadership of individuals, groups, and healthcare organisations is essential for improving surgical performance and indirectly improving health outcomes for patients. Numerous systematic reviews have been conducted which seek to determine the effectiveness of specific leadership interventions across a range of disciplines and healthcare outcomes. The purpose of this realist review is to systematically synthesise the literature which examines in which context and for whom leadership interventions improve leadership of surgeons, surgical teams, and trainees.

Methods

Several approaches will be used to iteratively search the scientific and grey literature to identify relevant evidence. Selected articles will inform the development of a programme theory that seeks to explain in which context and for whom interventions can improve leadership of surgical trainees, surgeons, and surgical teams. Next, empirical studies will be searched systematically in order to test and, where necessary, refine the theory. Once theoretical saturation has been achieved, recommendations for advancing leadership in surgery will be developed. Stakeholder and patient and public consultations will contribute to the development of the programme theory. The review will be written up according to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards publication standards. No ethical review will be required for the conduct of this realist review.

Discussion

The knowledge gained from this review will provide evidence-based guidance for those planning or designing leadership interventions in surgery. The recommendations will help policymakers, educationalists, healthcare providers, and those delivering or planning leadership development programmes across the surgical disciplines to design interventions that are acceptable to the surgical community and successful in improving surgical leadership.PROSPERO registration: CRD42021230709.

Advancing clinical leadership to improve the implementation of evidence-based practice in surgery: a longitudinal mixed-method study protocol

BACKGROUND

Clinical leadership is fundamental in facilitating service improvements in healthcare. Few studies have attempted to understand or model the different approaches to leadership which are used when promoting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based interventions. This research aims to uncover and explain how distributed clinical leadership can be developed and improved to enhance the use of evidence in practice. In doing so, this study examines implementation leadership in orthopaedic surgery to explain leadership as a collective endeavour which cannot be separated from the organisational context.

METHODS

A mixed-method study consisting of longitudinal and cross-sectional interviews and an embedded social network analysis will be performed in six NHS hospitals. A social network analysis will be undertaken in each hospital to uncover the organisational networks, the focal leadership actors and information flows in each organisation. This will be followed by a series of repeated semi-structured interviews, conducted over 4 years, with orthopaedic surgeons and their professional networks. These longitudinal interviews will be supplemented by cross-sectional interviews with the national established surgical leaders. All qualitative data will be analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach and integrated with the quantitative data. The participant narratives will enrich the social network to uncover the leadership configurations which exist, and how different configurations of leadership are functioning in practice to influence implementation processes and outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The study findings will facilitate understanding about how and why different configurations of leadership develop and under what organisational conditions and circumstances they are able to flourish. The study will guide the development of leadership interventions that are grounded in the data and aimed at advancing leadership for service improvement in orthopaedics. The strength of the study lies in the combination of multi-component, multi-site, multi-agent methods to examine leadership processes in surgery. The findings may be limited by the practical challenges of longitudinal qualitative data collection, such as ensuring participant retention, which need to be balanced against the theoretical and empirical insights generated through this comprehensive exploration of leadership across and within a range of healthcare organisations.

Understanding the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care: a qualitative study of knowledge mobilisation using the i-PARIHS framework

Background

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation.

Methods

This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5–8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results.

Results

In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. ‘Instinctive facilitation’ may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation.

Conclusion

This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-020-01055-2.

From what we know to what we do: enhancing absorptive capacity in translational health research

Background

Globally, evidence about what works is slow to translate into frontline healthcare delivery. As a response, government policy has focused on translational health initiatives, such as the National Institute for Health Research funded Applied Research Collaborations in England. Concepts from organisation science prove useful to support such translational initiatives. We critique the application of two organisation science concepts linked to the broad domain of what is commonly termed ‘knowledge mobilisation’ in healthcare settings, specifically ‘knowledge brokers’ and ‘absorptive capacity’, to provide lessons for leaders of translational initiatives.

Results

The presence of knowledge brokers to ‘move from what we know to what we do’ in healthcare delivery appears necessary but insufficient to have a system level effect. To embed knowledge brokers in the wider healthcare system so they draw on various sources of evidence to discharge their role with greatest effect, we encourage leaders of translational health research initiatives to take account of the concept of absorptive capacity (ACAP) from the organisation science literature. Leaders should focus on enhancing ACAP though development of ‘co-ordination capabilities’. Such co-ordination capability should aim not just to acquire different types of evidence, but to ensure that all types of evidence are used to develop, implement and scale up healthcare delivery that best benefits patients. Specific co-ordination capabilities that support translation of evidence are: clinician involvement in research and its implementation; patient and public involvement in research and its implementation; business intelligence structures and processes at organisational and system level.

Conclusion

Attention to the dimensions and antecedents of ACAP, alongside the implementation of the knowledge brokering solution, in translational health research initiatives, is likely to better ensure the latter’s success.

Challenges in developing collaborative interdisciplinary research between gastroenterologists and engineers

The role of technology in healthcare is rapidly evolving. However, it can be argued that gastroenterology has not kept pace with other medical fields due to the multifaceted needs of this speciality and other issues. Innovation in healthcare technology increasingly requires interdisciplinary collaboration between engineers and clinicians. Nevertheless, working in such an interdisciplinary environment can be challenging due to factors such as working culture, communication and difference in priorities. We surveyed the views of clinicians specialising in gastroenterology and engineers on interdisciplinary health research. The 21 respondents expressed a range of opinions on the perceived benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration. Though engineers and clinicians recognised its advantages, they expressed a need for further improvement. However, engineers and clinicians differed in how best this could be achieved. The results of this survey are discussed with reference to the literature on interdisciplinary collaboration.

Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations

Background

Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were funded by NIHR in England in 2008 and 2014 as partnerships between universities and surrounding health service organisations, focused on improving the quality of healthcare through the conduct and application of applied health research. The aim of this review is to synthesise learning from evaluations of the CLAHRCs.

Methods

Fifteen databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched to identify any evaluations of CLAHRCs. Current and archived CLAHRC websites and the reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify any additional evaluations. Searches were restricted to English language only. Any publications from evaluations of the CLAHRCs were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled at least one of three pre-specified inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Results

Twenty-six evaluations (reported in 37 papers) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Evaluations focused on describing and exploring the formative partnerships, vision, values, structures and processes of CLAHRCs; the nature and role of boundaries; the deployment of knowledge brokers and hybrid roles to support knowledge mobilisation; patient and public involvement; and capacity building. The relative lack of data about the early impact of CLAHRCs on health care provision or outcomes is notable.

Conclusions

Much of the evaluative focus on CLAHRCs has been on how they have been organised and on the development of theory around their emergent properties. Evidence is lacking on the impact of CLAHRCs particularly in relation to the knowledge mobilisation processes and practices adopted. Further evaluation of CLAHRCs and other similar research and practice partnerships is warranted and should focus on which knowledge mobilisation approaches work where, how and why.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42016042945).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How are evidence and knowledge used in orthopaedic decision-making? Three comparative case studies of different approaches to implementation of clinical guidance in practice

Background

The uptake and use of clinical guidelines is often insufficient to change clinical behaviour and reduce variation in practice. As a consequence of diverse organisational contexts, the simple provision of guidelines cannot ensure fidelity or guarantee their use when making decisions. Implementation research in surgery has focused on understanding what evidence exists for clinical practice decisions but limits understanding to the technical, educational and accessibility issues. This research aims to identify where, when and how evidence and knowledge are used in orthopaedic decision-making and how variation in these factors contributes to different approaches to implementation of clinical guidance in practice.

Methods

We used in-depth case studies to examine guideline implementation in real-life surgical practice. We conducted comparative case studies in three English National Health Service hospitals over a 12-month period. Each in-depth case study consisted of a mix of qualitative methods including interviews, observations and document analysis. Data included field notes from observations of day-to-day practice, 64 interviews with NHS surgeons and staff and the collection of 121 supplementary documents.

Results

Case studies identified 17 sources of knowledge and evidence which influenced clinical decisions in elective orthopaedic surgery. A comparative analysis across cases revealed that each hospital had distinct approaches to decision-making. Decision-making is described as occurring as a result of how 17 types of knowledge and evidence were privileged and of how they interacted and changed in context. Guideline implementation was contingent and mediated through four distinct contextual levels. Implementation could be assessed for individual surgeons, groups of surgeons or the organisation as a whole, but it could also differ between these levels. Differences in how evidence and knowledge were used contributed to variations in practice from guidelines.

Conclusion

A range of complex and competing sources of evidence and knowledge exists which influence the working practices of healthcare professionals. The dynamic selection, combination and use of each type of knowledge and evidence influence the implementation and use of clinical guidance in practice. Clinical guidelines are a fundamental part of practice, but represent only one type of evidence influencing clinical decisions. In the orthopaedic speciality, other distinct sources of evidence and knowledge are selected and used which impact on how guidelines are implemented. New approaches to guideline implementation need to appreciate and incorporate this diverse range of knowledge and evidence which influences clinical decisions and to take account of the changing contexts in which decisions are made.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0771-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Critical healthcare management studies: green shoots

Purpose While critical approaches have enriched research in proximate fields, their impact has been less marked in studies of healthcare management. In response, the 2016 Organizational Behaviour in Health Care Conference hosted its first-ever session dedicated to the emergent field of critical healthcare management studies (CHMSs). The purpose of this paper is to present five papers selected from that conference. Design/methodology/approach In this introductory paper, the authors frame the contributions as "green shoots" in a field of CHMS which contains four main furrows of activity: questioning the taken-for-granted; moving beyond instrumentalism; reflexivity and meanings in research; and challenging structures of domination (Kitchener and Thomas, 2016). The authors conclude by presenting an agenda for further cultivating the field of CHMS. Findings The papers evidence the value of CHMS, and provide insight into the benefits of broadening theoretical and methodological approaches in pursuit of critical insights. Research limitations/implications CHMS works to explicate the multiple and competing ideologies and interests inherent in healthcare. As pragmatic imperatives push the provision of health and social care out of the organisational contexts and into private space, there is a particular need to simultaneously understand, and critically interrogate, the implications of new, as well as existing, forms of care. Practical implications This paper reviews, frames and details practical next steps in developing CHMS. These include: enhanced engagement with a wider range of actors than is currently the norm in mainstream healthcare management research; a broadening of theoretical and methodological lenses; support for critical approaches among editors and reviewers; and enhanced communication of critical research via its incorporation into education and training programmes. Originality/value The paper contributes to an emerging stream of CHMS research, and works to consolidate next steps for the field.

Knowledge translation in tri-sectoral collaborations: An exploration of perceptions of academia, industry and healthcare collaborations in innovation adoption

With the aging population and increase in chronic disease conditions, innovation to transform treatment pathways and service delivery will be necessary. The innovation adoption process however, can take 15 years before widespread adoption occurs in most healthcare systems. Current UK government policies to increase the facilitation of innovation adoption are under way. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of tri-sectoral collaborations in the healthcare sector. The data in the study are drawn from a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2015 of professionals in academia, industry and the healthcare sectors in England, focusing on Diabetes care. Academia and healthcare respondents had the least work experience outside of their sectors compared to the industry respondents. Healthcare and academia respondents rated the industry sector less trustworthy, unethical, having different goals and less understanding of the other sectors. Industry respondents had a more positive perspective towards potential collaborators. The results from the study demonstrate greater potential challenges to tri-sectoral collaborations and the government's knowledge translation policy, due to pre-conceived notions and lack of understanding of other sectors. The purely structural approach of establishing government mandated translational networks may be insufficient without active attempts to improve collaborative relationships. Mechanisms to facilitate trust building and collaboration are proposed.

Adapting the Ideas of Translational Science for Translational Family Science

Family science has been doing translational science since before it came into vogue. Nevertheless, the field has been subjected to the same forces in the broader academy that have created a widening chasm between discovery and practice. Thus, the primary objective of this article is to translate the principles, concepts, and models of translational science to solidify an identity for family science and help the field move forward in broader academic, care delivery, and policy arenas. Alternative models of translational science, primarily from biomedicine but also from other disciplines, are reviewed and critically analyzed, and core concepts and principles are isolated, elaborated, and applied to family science. Family science's long-standing commitment to the doctrine of evidence-based practice, and its ongoing endorsement of the principles of scientific duality and multidisciplinary utility, places it in a preeminent position for using the zeitgeist of translational science to move forward. Nonetheless, the field has important epistemological, practical, professional, and curricular steps to complete to better position itself as a distinct and valued body of scientists. Ultimately, we argue that embracing the principles, concepts, and models of translational science should be leveraged by family science to help brand itself as a unique and essential social science field for enhancing the human condition.

[From sociology in medicine to the sociology of collective health: contributions toward a necessary reflexivity]

This text looks at the difference between sociology in medicine (collaborator of health institutions) and the sociology of medicine (independent of health institutions). If consistent, sociology in medicine should become a sociology of medicine. As an example, it is shown how the study of the social determinants of health and illness begins by assuming non-problematically the ontological reality of health and illness, but ends up problematizing the very concept of health-disease, demonstrating that the study of health determinants also requires the study of the determinants of the social construction of disease. The urgent necessity of objectifying collective health itself is argued. By applying sociological tools we can examine the so-called objective factors in the determination of health and disease, the socially constructed nature of these categories of knowledge, and the struggles and power relations that determine whether or not such categories are viable.

Collaboration and entanglement: An actor-network theory analysis of team-based intraprofessional care for patients with advanced heart failure

Despite calls for more interprofessional and intraprofessional team-based approaches in healthcare, we lack sufficient understanding of how this happens in the context of patient care teams. This multi-perspective, team-based interview study examined how medical teams negotiated collaborative tensions. From 2011 to 2013, 50 patients across five sites in three Canadian provinces were interviewed about their care experiences and were asked to identify members of their health care teams. Patient-identified team members were subsequently interviewed to form 50 "Team Sampling Units" (TSUs), consisting of 209 interviews with patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. Results are gathered from a focused analysis of 13 TSUs where intraprofessional collaborative tensions involved treating fluid overload, or edema, a common HF symptom. Drawing on actor-network theory (ANT), the analysis focused on intraprofessional collaboration between specialty care teams in cardiology and nephrology. The study found that despite a shared narrative of common purpose between cardiology teams and nephrology teams, fluid management tools and techniques formed sites of collaborative tension. In particular, care activities involved asynchronous clinical interpretations, geographically distributed specialist care, fragmented forms of communication, and uncertainty due to clinical complexity. Teams 'disentangled' fluid in order to focus on its physiological function and mobilisation. Teams also used distinct 'framings' of fluid management that created perceived collaborative tensions. This study advances collaborative entanglement as a conceptual framework for understanding, teaching, and potentially ameliorating some of the tensions that manifest during intraprofessional care for patients with complex, chronic disease.

Exploring the Hidden Barriers in Knowledge Translation: A Case Study Within an Academic Community

Debates about knowledge translation (KT) typically focus on the research-practice gap, which appears to be premised on the assumption that academics are a homogeneous collective, sharing a common view. We argue that a number of hidden barriers need to be addressed related to the understanding, interpretation, ability, and commitment to translate knowledge within academic communities. We explore this by presenting a qualitative case study in a health sciences faculty. Applying organizational and management theory, we discuss different types of boundaries and the resultant barriers generated, ranging from diversity in understanding and perceptions of KT to varying motivations and incentives to engage in translational activity. We illustrate how we are using the empirical findings to inform the development of a KT strategy that targets the identified barriers. Investing in this internal KT-focused activity is an important step to maximize the potential of future collaborations between producers and users of research in health care.

Necessary but Not Sufficient… Comment on "Knowledge Mobilization in Healthcare Organizations: A View From the Resource-Based View of the Firm"

The challenge of mobilizing knowledge to improve patient care, population health and ensure effective use of resources is an enduring one in healthcare systems across the world. This commentary reflects on an earlier paper by Ferlie and colleagues that proposes the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm as a useful theoretical lens through which to study knowledge mobilization in healthcare. Specifically, the commentary considers 3 areas that need to be addressed in relation to the proposed application of RBV: the definition of competitive advantage in healthcare; the contribution of macro level theory to understanding knowledge mobilization in healthcare; and the need to embrace and align multiple theories at the micro, meso, and macro levels of implementation.

Translational networks in healthcare? Evidence on the design and initiation of organizational networks for knowledge mobilization

International attention has focussed on the variations between research evidence and practice in healthcare. This prompted the creation of formalized translational networks consisting of academic-service partnerships. The English Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) are one example of a translational network. Using longitudinal, archival case study data from one CLAHRC over a 3-year period (2008-11), this article explores the relationship between organizational form and the function(s) of a translational network. The article focuses on the research gaps on the effective structures and appropriate governance to support a translational network. Data analysis suggested that the policy of setting up translational networks is insufficient of itself to produce positive translational activity. The data indicate that to leverage the benefits of the whole network, attention must be paid to devising a structure which integrates research production and use and facilitates lateral cross-disciplinary and cross-organizational communication. Equally, appropriate governance arrangements are necessary, particularly in large, multi-stakeholder networks, where shared governance may be questionable. Inappropriate network structure and governance inhibits the potential of the translational network. Finally, the case provides insights into the movement of knowledge within and between network organizations. The data demonstrate that knowledge mobilization extends beyond knowledge translation; knowledge mobilization includes the negotiated utilization of knowledge - a balanced power form of collaboration. Whilst much translational effort is externally focused on the health system, our findings highlight the essential need for the internal negotiation and mobilization of knowledge within academia.

The barriers and facilitators to the implementation of clinical guidance in elective orthopaedic surgery: a qualitative study protocol

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines in orthopaedic surgery aim to improve the efficiency, quality and outcomes of patient care by ensuring that treatment recommendations are based on the best available evidence. The simple provision of guidelines, however, does not ensure fidelity or guarantee their uptake and use in surgical practice. Research exploring the factors that affect surgeons' use of evidence and guidelines has focused on understanding what evidence exists for current clinical decisions. This narrowed scope emphasises the technical, educational and accessibility issues but overlooks wider factors that help explain how and why guidelines are not implemented and used in surgery. It is also important to understand how we can encourage the implementation processes in practice. By taking a social science perspective to examine orthopaedic surgery, we move beyond the narrow focus and explore how and why clinical guidelines struggle to achieve full uptake. We aim to explore guideline uptake to discover the factors that contribute to, or complicate, appropriate implementation in this field. We need to go beyond traditional views and experimental methods to examine the barriers and facilitators of implementation in real-life NHS surgical practice. These could be multifactorial, linked to individual, organisational or contextual influences, which act on the guideline implementation process.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will use ethnographic methods to conduct case studies in three English NHS hospitals. Within each case, we will conduct observations, interviews and analysis of key documents to understand experiences, complex processes and decisions made and the role of clinical guidance and other sources of evidence within orthopaedic surgery. The data will be transcribed and analysed thematically. Comparisons will be made within cases and across cases.

DISCUSSION

Guidelines are a fundamental part of clinical practice, and various factors must be considered when preparing for their successful implementation into organisations. Understanding the views and experiences of a range of surgical, clerical and managerial staff across multiple orthopaedic departments will capture the complexity and variety of factors that can influence surgical decisions. The findings of our study will identify the specific features of orthopaedic practice to help guide the development of strategies to facilitate guideline uptake in everyday surgical work.

Translating evidence into healthcare policy and practice: Single versus multi-faceted implementation strategies - is there a simple answer to a complex question?

How best to achieve the translation of research evidence into routine policy and practice remains an enduring challenge in health systems across the world. The complexities associated with changing behaviour at an individual, team, organizational and system level have led many academics to conclude that tailored, multi-faceted strategies provide the most effective approach to knowledge translation. However, a recent overview of systematic reviews questions this position and sheds doubt as to whether multi-faceted strategies are any better than single ones. In this paper, we argue that this either-or distinction is too simplistic and fails to recognize the complexity that is inherent in knowledge translation. Drawing on organizational theory relating to boundaries and boundary management, we illustrate the need for translational strategies that take account of the type of knowledge to be implemented, the context of implementation and the people and processes involved.