Problems and promises of innovation: why healthcare needs to rethink its love/hate relationship with the new

Shifting from Theoretical Best Evidence to Practical Best Evidence: an Approach to Overcome Structural Conservatism of Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Policy

There is disparity in the healthcare sector between the extent of innovation in medical products (e. g., drugs) and healthcare structures. The reason is not a lack of ideas, concepts, or (quasi-) experimental studies on structural innovations. Instead, we argue that the slow implementation of structural innovations has created this disparity partly because evidence-based medicine (EBM) instruments are well suited to evaluate product innovations but less suited to evaluate structural innovations. This article argues that the unintentional interplay between EBM, which has changed significantly over time to become primarily theoretical, on the one hand, and caution and inertia in health policy, on the other, has resulted in structural conservatism. Structural conservatism is present when healthcare structures persistently and essentially resist innovation. We interpret this phenomenon as an unintended consequence of deliberate EBM action. Therefore, we propose a new assessment framework to respond to structural innovations in healthcare, centered on the differentiation between the theoretical best (possible) evidence, the practical best (possible) evidence, and the best available evidence.

The promise and pitfalls of care standardization in congenital diaphragmatic hernia

The aim of standardizing care is to enhance patient outcomes and optimize healthcare delivery by minimizing variations in care and ensuring the efficient allocation of healthcare resources. Despite these potential benefits to patients, healthcare providers and the healthcare system, standardization may also disadvantage these groups. With a specific focus on congenital diaphragmatic hernia, this article will review the promise and pitfalls of standardization, as well as a potential path forward that uses standardization to improve outcomes in this rare and complex disease process.

Revolutionising health and social care: innovative solutions for a brighter tomorrow - a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

In an era marked by rapid technological advancements, changing demographics, and evolving healthcare needs, the landscape of health services has been undergoing a profound transformation. Innovation has emerged as a central force driving change in the healthcare sector, as stakeholders across the globe strive to enhance the quality, accessibility, and efficiency of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

Within this dynamic context, this systematic literature review explored the barriers and driving forces behind successful health service innovation.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted using the Griffith University Library search engine and databases that included PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINHAL. To achieve the study goal, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the associated PRISMA checklist guided the review and reporting method.

RESULTS

Findings from this review identified a need for a universal definition of health innovation that encompasses the unique complexities and challenges within this context. In our comprehensive analysis of healthcare innovation, we have uncovered pivotal findings that underscore the indispensable nature of a well-structured framework.

CONCLUSIONS

To succeed in fostering innovation within the health and social care sectors, it is imperative to establish an overarching organisational culture that meticulously addresses the following key components: team challenges; communication and collaboration; governance goals and authentic leadership, environmental engagement; and innovation endurance. Through systematic analysis of existing literature, this review offers a definition of health innovation, covering its conceptual foundations, determinants, and barriers, and provides a framework for creating an innovative culture.

AI Through Ethical Lenses: A Discourse Analysis of Guidelines for AI in Healthcare

While the technologies that enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to advance rapidly, there are increasing promises regarding AI's beneficial outputs and concerns about the challenges of human-computer interaction in healthcare. To address these concerns, institutions have increasingly resorted to publishing AI guidelines for healthcare, aiming to align AI with ethical practices. However, guidelines as a form of written language can be analyzed to recognize the reciprocal links between its textual communication and underlying societal ideas. From this perspective, we conducted a discourse analysis to understand how these guidelines construct, articulate, and frame ethics for AI in healthcare. We included eight guidelines and identified three prevalent and interwoven discourses: (1) AI is unavoidable and desirable; (2) AI needs to be guided with (some forms of) principles (3) trust in AI is instrumental and primary. These discourses signal an over-spillage of technical ideals to AI ethics, such as over-optimism and resulting hyper-criticism. This research provides insights into the underlying ideas present in AI guidelines and how guidelines influence the practice and alignment of AI with ethical, legal, and societal values expected to shape AI in healthcare.

Worth a try or a last resort: Healthcare professionals' experiences and opinions of above cuff vocalisation

BACKGROUND

Above cuff vocalisation (ACV) involves the application of an external flow of air via the subglottic port of a tracheostomy. ACV can facilitate vocalisation and may improve swallowing and quality of life for patients with a tracheostomy. A recent systematic review highlighted the limited evidence available for the acceptability, effectiveness, safety or optimal implementation of ACV.

AIMS

To explore the experience of healthcare professionals (HCPs) using ACV and their perceptions of best practice.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of HCPs with experience using ACV. Topics included: experiences with ACV, management of ACV, opinions about ACV, impact of COVID-19, future directions for ACV and impact on length of stay. Interviews were conducted online from December 2020 to March 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Twenty-four HCPs were interviewed from seven countries and five professional groups. Four interconnected themes were developed: (1) moral distress amplifying the need to fix patients; (2) subjectivity and uncertainty leading to variations in practice and purpose; (3) knowledge and experience leading to control and caution; and (4) worth a try or a last resort. Theme four contained three sub-themes: (a) part of the toolbox; (b) useful but limited tool; and (c) following the patient's lead. The moral distress experienced by HCPs and their essential 'need to fix' patients seems to underpin the varied opinions of ACV. These opinions appear to be formed primarily on the basis of experience, because of the underlying subjectivities and uncertainties. As knowledge and experience with ACV increased, and adverse events were experienced, most HCPs became more cautious in their approach to ACV.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

More research is needed to reduce the subjectivities and uncertainties surrounding ACV. The implementation of standardised procedures, processes, and competencies may help to reduce the frequency of adverse events and support a more controlled approach. Widening the focus of the purpose of ACV to include swallowing may help to maximise the potential benefits.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject There is limited and low-quality evidence for above cuff vocalisation (ACV) and clinical application and practice varies substantially. However, the reasons for this variation in practice and healthcare professionals' (HCPs') opinions of ACV were unclear. What this study adds HCPs' experiences and opinions of ACV vary as a result of the uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding ACV compounded by their personal experiences with it. A need for caution also appears to emerge as HCPs become more familiar and experienced with using ACV. What are the clinical implications of this work? Implementing standardised procedures, safety processes and competencies may help to compensate for the uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding ACV and may reduce the frequency of adverse events. Widening the focus of purpose of ACV, including swallowing in addition to communication, may increase the number of potential candidates and increase the potential benefits of ACV. Using multidisciplinary team (MDT) simulation training for ACV competency development might help to improve MDT working and ACV implementation.

Implementing a mental health app library in primary care: A feasibility study

Confronted with a wide range of digital health tools (DHT), professionals and patients need guidance to use these tools correctly and optimize health management. In the fall of 2020, a DHT library developed by Quebec-based company TherAppX was implemented in 22 institutions. The library was designed to enable healthcare professionals to use DHT in clinical care. The purpose of the current study was to assess the feasibility of implementing the library, including user experience, changes in DHT recommendation habits, and factors that helped or hindered the implementation process. A multi-methods design focusing on secondary use of quantitative data collected by TherAppX and semi-structured interviews with users was employed. While the quantitative analyses indicated infrequent use of the library, qualitative analyses highlighted several factors that hindered its implementation, including certain library and user characteristics and the unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the quantitative analyses confirmed interest in DHT and their usefulness during follow-ups. The results revealed a marginally significant pre-post changes in the frequency with which DHT were recommended. This study helped identify areas for improvements and indicates that further evaluation is needed. Future implementations would benefit from ensuring optimal conditions for a successful implementation.

A snapshot on a journey from frustration to readiness-A qualitative pre-implementation exploration of readiness for technology adoption in Public Health Protection in Ireland

In an era of emergent infectious disease, the timely and efficient management of disease outbreaks is critical to public health protection. Integrated technologies for case and incident management (CIM) collect real-time health intelligence for decision making in Public Health. In Ireland, a Public Health reform program is preparing for implementation of a health information system for health protection. Project implementers seek to document and understand the readiness and willingness of future users to adopt the new system, prior to system procurement and implementation. Qualitative key informant interviews were conducted (n = 8) with Public Health personnel from a single regional department of Public Health representing medical, nursing, disease surveillance and administrative roles, at managerial and staff levels. A qualitative thematic analysis was performed. Participants were frustrated by weaknesses in the current practice of CIM and were ready and willing to adopt a digital CIM system if it met their needs. However, they were frustrated by lack of clear timelines. We identified 7 enablers and 3 barriers to readiness and willingness to adopt a CIM system. 'Newness of the workforce' was the main enabler of readiness and willingness, while 'lack of knowledge and familiarity with system' was the main barrier to readiness and willingness. Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic gave a clear understanding of the problems and need for a digital CIM system and the reform program facilitated a culture of change, readying the workforce for the new health information system. New members of the Public Health departments are a likely ready and eager cohort for adoption of a modern, 'fit for purpose' CIM system and the execution of implementation will likely determine how ready and willing the wider network of departments will be to adopt a national CIMS.

Implementing PCR testing in general practice-a qualitative study using normalization process theory

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic brought attention to a need for rapid testing of large populations. Experiences from community-based testing settings show that there can be workload difficulties, logistical challenges and socioeconomic downsides to large scale Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing. Alternative testing arenas have therefore been considered. Rapid point-of-care (POC) PCR test methods have since been developed and could have potential to surveille viral respiratory infections. It is, however, unknown if PCR testing can be successfully implemented routinely in general practice. The aim of this study was to assess factors that enable and inhibit the implementation of point-of-care PCR testing for acute respiratory tract infection in general practice.

METHODS

Fourteen general practices in the east Zealand area in Denmark were included in the study and given access to POC PCR testing equipment during a flu season. The participating clinics were initially trained in the use of a POC PCR testing device and then spent 6 weeks testing it. We conducted qualitative interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and their staff, before and after the testing period, specifically focusing on their clinical decision-making and internal collaboration in relation to POC PCR testing. We used normalization process theory to design the interview guides and to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Professionals reported no clinical need for a POC PCR testing device in a non-pandemic clinical setting. Results were delivered faster, but this was only timesaving for the patient and not the GP, who had to perform more tasks.

CONCLUSION

In its current form, the added diagnostic value of using POC PCR testing in general practice was not sufficient for the professionals to justify the increased work connected to the usage of the diagnostic procedure in daily practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

n/a.

Innovation in Nursing Practice: A Scoping Review

Conceptual clarity on nursing innovation is vital in educating and supporting innovative nurses. This analysis aimed to determine the state of innovation within nursing through a scoping review of the literature. Twenty-four articles were identified, and a constant comparison analysis discovered 3 components essential to the successful innovation: the innate characteristics of the nurse, teams, leader, workplace, and organization; the culture or environmental factors; and then the process components, which include the translation, assessment, outcome, and sustainability of an innovation. This review highlights the need to clarify what does or does not qualify something to be innovative. A Supplemental Digital Content video abstract is available at http://links.lww.com/ANS/A68 .

Learning machines or the key to care: a qualitative study exploring the impact of the hidden curriculum on medical students' longitudinal experiences in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Longitudinal learning often faces implementation challenges within UK medical schools. Some have suggested that the hidden curriculum may be implicated, but there is little evidence regarding how the hidden curriculum influences student experiences of, and engagement with longitudinal learning. Given this, our objective was to explore the impact of the hidden curriculum on student experiences of a longitudinal curriculum based in primary care at a research-intensive medical school.

DESIGN

We conducted a longitudinal qualitative study. Students participated in three serial, in-depth semistructured interviews. We conducted a longitudinal thematic analysis.

SETTING

One research-intensive medical school based in the UK. Data collection occurred in 2021-2022.

PARTICIPANTS

12 penultimate year medical students taking part in a longitudinal primary care placement for 1 day a week over the course of one academic year.

RESULTS

We constructed four themes capturing insights on how hidden curricula influenced students' experiences: (1) A culture which stresses assessment influences student engagement with longitudinal learning; (2) Longitudinal relationships can challenge the hidden curriculum; (3) Support and continuity within primary care improves skills and can influence belonging and (4) Logistical issues influence engagement with longitudinal learning.

CONCLUSIONS

The hidden curriculum, particularly related to assessment, plays a large role in student perceptions of educational value and subsequent engagement with curricula. In a research-intensive institution, longitudinal learning, particularly within primary care, was perceived as at odds with what was important for assessments. Where longitudinal relationships were successfully established, students became more aware of the benefits of person-centred practice. For primary care longitudinal education to succeed in more research-intensive institutions, there must first be advocacy for greater representation of primary care and person-centred values within organisational structures to ensure meaningful curricular alignment.

Capturing what and why in healthcare innovation

Understandings of innovation usually encompass multiple overlapping aspects, putting innovation terminology at risk of vagueness and overuse. However, innovation concepts are expected to remain powerful and useful in healthcare beyond the pandemic and into the future, so clarity will be helpful for effective leadership. To disentangle and disambiguate meanings within innovation, we offer a framework that captures and simplifies foundational substance within innovation concepts. Our method is an overview review of innovation literature from the 5 years preceding COVID-19. 51 sources were sampled and analysed for explicit definitions of healthcare innovation. Drawing on broad themes suggested from previous reviews, and gathering specific themes emergent from this literary dataset, we focused on categorising the nature of innovations (the what) and reasons given for them (the why). We identified 4 categories of what (ideas, artefacts, practice/process and structure) and 10 categories of why (economic value, practical value, experience, resource use, equity/accessibility, sustainability, behaviour change, specific-problem solving, self-justifying renewal and improved health). These categories reflect contrasting priorities and values, but do not substantially interfere or occlude each other. They can freely be additively combined to create composite definitions. This conceptual scheme affords insight and clarity for creating precise meanings, and making critical sense of imprecision, around innovation. Improved communication and clear shared understandings around innovative intentions, policies and practices cannot but improve the chances of enhanced outcomes. The all-inclusive character of this scheme leaves space for considering the limits of innovation, and notwithstanding well-established critiques, provides a basis for clarity in ongoing usage.

Leading Transformation in Medical Education Through Extended Reality

Extended reality (XR) has exponentially developed over the past decades to incorporate technology whereby users can visualise, explore, and interact with 3-dimensional-generated computer environments, and superimpose virtual reality (VR) onto real-world environments, thus displaying information and data on various levels of the reality-virtuality continuum. In the context of medicine, VR tools allow for anatomical assessment and diagnosis, surgical training through lifelike procedural simulations, planning of surgeries and biopsies, intraprocedural guidance, and medical education. The following chapter aims to provide an overview of the currently available evidence and perspectives on the application of XR within medical education. It will focus on undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, medical education within Low-Middle Income Countries, key practical steps in implementing a successful XR programme, and the limitations and future of extended reality within medical education.

Too much theory and not enough practice? The challenge of implementation science application in healthcare practice

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) should contribute to maintaining high standards of care across healthcare systems and enhancing care practices. However, despite the evident need for greater and more rapid uptake and integration of evidence in practice, IS design and methodology fall short of the needs of effective translation.

AIM

In this paper we examine what it is about IS that makes it so appealing for effective uptake of interventions in routine practice, and yet so difficult to achieve. We propose a number of ways that implementation scientists could build mutual relationships with healthcare practitioners and other stakeholders including public members to ensure greater shared care practices, and highlight the value of IS training, collaborative educational events, and co-designed research.

DISCUSSION

More consideration should be given to IS applications in healthcare contexts. Implementation scientists can make a valuable contribution by mobilizing theory and improving practice. However, goals for an evidence-based system may be more appropriately achieved through greater outreach and collaboration, with methods that are flexible to support rapid implementation in complex adaptive systems. Collective learning and mutual trust can be cultivated by embedding researchers into healthcare services while offering greater opportunities for practitioners to learn about, and engage in, implementation research.

CONCLUSION

To bridge the worlds of healthcare practice and IS, researchers could be more consistent in the relationships they build with professionals and the public, communicating through a shared language and co-joining practical approaches to effective implementation. This will build capacity for improved collaboration and foster respectful, interdisciplinary relationships.

Exploring factors of uneven use of telehealth among outpatient pharmacy clinics during COVID-19: A multi-method study

Background

To enable services to be provided at a distance during the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient pharmacy services in Australia underwent near-immediate reform by moving to telehealth, including telephone and video consults.

Objective

To investigate how telehealth was used in a metropolitan outpatient pharmacy setting before and after the start of the COVID-19 restrictions and the various influences on the uptake of phone and video modalities.

Methods

A multi-methods approach was used including: (1) quantifying administrative activity data between July 2019 to December 2020 and, (2) semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (n = 34).

Results

Activity data: Between July 2019 to December 2020 16,377 outpatient pharmacy consults were provided. Of these, 13,543 (83%) were provided in-person, 2,608 (16%) by telephone and 226 (1.4%) by video consult. COVID-19 impacted how these services were provided with telephone activity more than four-times higher in April 2020 than March 2020 and slight increases in video consults. Pharmacists have heavily favoured using the telephone despite the recommendation that video consults be used as the primary mode of contact and that telephone only be used when a video consult was not possible. As soon as COVID-19 restrictions eased, clinicians gradually returned to in-person appointments, maintaining some use of telephone and very limited use of video consult. Semi-structured interviews: Whilst clinicians recognised the potential benefits of video consults, challenges to routine use included the additional administrative and planning work required pre-consult, perceptions that patients were unable to use the technology, and the belief that in-person care was ‘better’ and that the telephone was easier.

Conclusion

Organisational strategies that encouraged the use of video over telephone (e.g. through financial incentives) did not appear to influence clinicians’ choice of care modality. Implementation studies are required to co-develop solutions to embed telehealth options into outpatient pharmacy settings that provide the best experience for both patients and clinicians.

The WOMEN-UP Solution, a Patient-Centered Innovative e-Health Tool for Pelvic Floor Muscle Training: Qualitative and Usability Study during Early-Stage Development

e-Health may enhance self-management of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI). It is crucial to involve patients in planning, developing and monitoring the optimal e-Health solution. This research aims to describe patient-centered innovation in an early developmental stage of the WOMEN-UP solution. We conducted a qualitative study through a self-developed questionnaire in 22 women with SUI, to define system requirements from a patient’s perspective. The first prototype of the WOMEN-UP solution was developed. It was tested by 9 patients in a usability study (think-aloud protocol and retrospective interviews). Patient preferences regarding the possible use of an e-Health solution with serious games for PFMT were: (1) to receive feedback about PFMT; (2) convenient home-use; (3) increasing motivation; (4) available in medical centers. Identified usability aids (31) reassured our design-development plan, which considered the biofeedback and serious games as key factors. Patient’s perspective detected some unexpected issues related to the calibration and serious games, involving a change in the ongoing development to get an improved WOMEN-UP solution; the value of patient-centered innovation during the development of an e-Health solution for PFMT (WOMEN-UP solution). To identify patients’ unmet needs, we proposed a longitudinal approach for the future eHealth-related patient-centered innovations.

Why is repositioning public health innovation towards a social paradigm necessary? A reflection on the field of public health through the examples of Ebola and Covid-19

Health innovations are generally oriented on a techno-economic vision. In this perspective, technologies are seen as an end in themselves, and there is no arrangement between the technical and the social values of innovation. This vision prevails in sanitary crises, in which management is carried out based on the search for punctual, reactive, and technical solutions to remedy a specific problem without a systemic/holistic, sustainable, or proactive approach. This paper attempts to contribute to the literature on the epistemological orientation of innovations in the field of public health. Taking the Covid-19 and Ebola crises as examples, the primary objective is to show how innovation in health is oriented towards a techno-economic paradigm. Second, we propose a repositioning of public health innovation towards a social paradigm that will put more emphasis on the interaction between social and health dimensions in the perspective of social change. We will conclude by highlighting the roles that public health could play in allowing innovations to have more social value, especially during sanitary crises.

Digital health during COVID-19: lessons from operationalising new models of care in ophthalmology

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in massive disruptions within health care, both directly as a result of the infectious disease outbreak, and indirectly because of public health measures to mitigate against transmission. This disruption has caused rapid dynamic fluctuations in demand, capacity, and even contextual aspects of health care. Therefore, the traditional face-to-face patient-physician care model has had to be re-examined in many countries, with digital technology and new models of care being rapidly deployed to meet the various challenges of the pandemic. This Viewpoint highlights new models in ophthalmology that have adapted to incorporate digital health solutions such as telehealth, artificial intelligence decision support for triaging and clinical care, and home monitoring. These models can be operationalised for different clinical applications based on the technology, clinical need, demand from patients, and manpower availability, ranging from out-of-hospital models including the hub-and-spoke pre-hospital model, to front-line models such as the inflow funnel model and monitoring models such as the so-called lighthouse model for provider-led monitoring. Lessons learnt from operationalising these models for ophthalmology in the context of COVID-19 are discussed, along with their relevance for other specialty domains.

Agile Innovation to transform healthcare: innovating in complex adaptive systems is an everyday process, not a light bulb event

Innovation is essential to transform healthcare delivery systems, but in complex adaptive systems innovation is more than ‘light bulb events’ of inspired creativity. To achieve true innovation, organisations must adopt a disciplined, customer-centred process. We developed the process of Agile Innovation as an approach any complex adaptive organisation can adopt to achieve rapid, systematic, customer-centred development and testing of innovative interventions. Agile Innovation incorporates insights from design thinking, Agile project management, and complexity and behavioural sciences. It was refined through experiments in diverse healthcare organisations. The eight steps of Agile Innovation are: (1) confirm demand; (2) study the problem; (3) scan for solutions; (4) plan for evaluation and termination; (5) ideate and select; (6) run innovation development sprints; (7) validate solutions; and (8) package for launch. In addition to describing each of these steps, we discuss examples of and challenges to using Agile Innovation. We contend that once Agile Innovation is mastered, healthcare delivery organisations can habituate it as the go-to approach to projects, thus incorporating innovation into how things are done, rather than treating innovation as a light bulb event.

User involvement in the implementation of welfare technology in home care services: The experience of health professionals-A qualitative study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to learn more about factors that promote or inhibit user involvement among health professionals when implementing welfare technology in home care services.

BACKGROUND

It is a health policy goal to increase the use of welfare technology in order to address some of the challenges that healthcare services are facing. Health professionals' involvement is important for the successful implementation of welfare technology in home care services.

DESIGN

The study has an explorative and descriptive longitudinal design based on a qualitative approach. Five focus group interviews were conducted with 16 nurses and assistant nurses from three different municipalities over a period of 2 years. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The COREQ checklist was used.

RESULTS

The analysis led to five main themes: competence a critical component, information and information lines, new ways of working, choice of welfare technology and change in patient services. From health professionals' perspective, there appeared to be a lack of preparedness for the change in the implementation of welfare technology entailed for home care services. The respondents experienced limited facilitation and opportunities for user involvement.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals want to be more involved but emphasised that competence, information and collaborative arenas are necessary factors if involvement in the process is to be increased. Competence affected some of the respondents' attitudes and willingness to use the technology. The respondents also experienced that the managements' focus on facilitation and interest in user involvement in addition to infrastructures that functioned in various ways had an impact on user involvement.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The knowledge gained from this study about factors that promote or inhibit user involvement among health professionals could contribute to better preparedness for further implementation of welfare technology in the field of home care.

Understanding decisions to scale up: a qualitative case study of three health service intervention evaluations

OBJECTIVE

Efforts to scale up evidence-based health care interventions are seen as a key strategy to address complex health system challenges. However, scale-up efforts have shown significant variability. We address the gap between scale-up theory and practice by exploring the socio-cultural factors at play in the evaluation and scale-up of three interventions within the clinical field.

METHODS

A qualitative multiple case study was conducted to characterize the evaluation and scale-up efforts of three interventions. We interviewed 18 participants, including clinicians and researchers across the three cases. Using Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of field and capital as a theoretical lens, we conducted a thematic analysis of the data.

RESULTS

Despite the espoused goals of ensuring that health service interventions are always based on high-quality evidence within the clinical field, this study demonstrates that the outcomes of the evaluations are not the only factor in the decision to engage in scale-up efforts. Important socio-cultural factors also come into play. Bourdieu uses the term capital to refer to the resources that agents compete for and with their acquisition, accumulate power and/or social standing. The type of evidence valued in the clinical field and the ability to leverage capital in demonstrating that value are also important factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Determining if an intervention is effective and should be scaled up is more complex in practice than described in the literature. Efforts are needed to explicitly include the role of social processes in the current frameworks guiding scaling-up efforts.

On Innovation

Innovation has become an increasingly common topic in healthcare. Private companies, developers, payers, and regulators are devoting attention toward innovative products and processes as a crucial component of their interests in and occupation with healthcare services. Even when there is no consensus as to its definition, "innovation" -as opposed to "invention"- is broadly understood to refer turning a good idea into a practical solution. Adoption and applicability are key components of implementation that are sustained not only on innovation's attributes themselves but also in the characteristics of providers, users, and implementing organizations, as well as the external environment. Regulatory agencies often face the need to make decisions about proposed innovations with obsolete or inadequate normative frameworks and with a high degree of uncertainty about its eventual performance or its risks. Early interaction between developers and dedicated multidisciplinary teams at regulatory agencies may prove instrumental for speeding up the time required for proper evaluation and product registration, as well as the establishment of quality validation mechanisms. Community involvement both in the adoption and vigilance on innovative products and processes is crucial for completing the process of defining their roles and uses.

Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling

BACKGROUND

To assess whether early health economic modeling helps to distinguish those healthcare innovations that are potentially cost-effective from those that are not potentially cost-effective. We will also study what information is retrieved from the health economic models to inform further development, research and implementation decisions.

METHODS

We performed secondary analyses on an existing database of 32 health economic modeling assessments of 30 innovations, performed by our group. First, we explored whether the assessments could distinguish innovations with potential cost-effectiveness from innovations without potential cost-effectiveness. Second, we explored which recommendations were made regarding development, implementation and further research of the innovation.

RESULTS

Of the 30 innovations, 1 (3%) was an idea that was not yet being developed and 14 (47%) were under development. Eight (27%) innovations had finished development, and another 7 (23%) innovations were on the market. Although all assessments showed that the innovation had the potential to become cost-effective, due to improved patient outcomes, cost savings or both, differences were found in the magnitude of the potential benefits, and the likelihood of reaching this potential. The assessments informed how the innovation could be further developed or positioned to maximize its cost-effectiveness, and informed further research.

CONCLUSION

The early health economic assessments provided insight in the potential cost-effectiveness of an innovation in its intended context, and the associated uncertainty. None of the assessments resulted in a firm 'no-go' recommendation, but recommendations could be provided on further research and development in order to maximize value for money.

The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation

By what measure should a policy maker choose between two mediums that deliver the same or similar message or service? Between, say, video consultation or a remote patient monitoring application (i.e. patient-facing digital health innovations) and in-person consultation? To answer this question, we sought to identify measures which are used in randomised controlled trials. But first we used two theories to frame the effects of patient-facing digital health innovations on - 1) transaction costs (i.e. the effort, time and costs required to complete a clinical interaction); and 2) process outcomes and clinical outcomes along the care cascade or information value chain, such that the 'value of information' (VoI) is different at each point in the care cascade or value chain. From the trials, we identified three categories of measures: outcome (process or clinical), satisfaction, and cost. We found that although patient-facing digital health innovations tend to confer much of their value by altering process outcomes, satisfaction, and transaction costs, these measures are inconsistently assessed. Efforts to determine the relative value of and choose between mediums of service delivery should adopt a metric (i.e. mathematical combination of measures) that capture all dimensions of value. We argue that 'value of information' (VoI) is such a metric - it is calculated as the difference between the 'expected utility' (EU) of alternative options. But for patient-facing digital health innovations, 'expected utility' (EU) should incorporate the probability of achieving not only a clinical outcome, but also process outcomes (depending on the innovation under consideration); and the measures of utility should include satisfaction and transaction costs; and also changes in population access to services, and health system capacity to deliver more services, which may result from reduction in transaction costs.

The value proposition for point-of-care testing in healthcare: HbA1c for monitoring in diabetes management as an exemplar

Point-of-care testing (POCT) is a key enabling technology for disruptive and transformative innovation in healthcare, allowing tests to be performed quickly and close to the patient. This results in faster clinical decision making and new, more efficient models of care, with clinical, process and economic benefits potentially accruing to all stakeholders. Recognised barriers to the adoption of new technology such as POCT include poor understanding of current practice and thus the unmet need, the challenges of process change, and reluctance to disinvest in redundant resources resulting from improved pathway efficiency. Major contributors to this problem include a background of funding, organisation and management of healthcare that fails to recognise the complexity of a multiple stakeholder health economy seeking to become more outcomes-based and value driven. We examine the concept of a structured value proposition as a generic tool to achieve better adoption of POCT using as an example, the evidence that is available for the rapid measurement of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the management of diabetes. We highlight the key components of the value proposition, identifying the impact of the test result on all stakeholders and the metrics which are required to define current practice (e.g. a laboratory-based HbA1c testing service), in order to develop the business case and the implementation plan required to demonstrate effective adoption of a POCT-based service. We conclude that the value proposition helps to identify the potential benefits to be gained from using POCT, and the stakeholders to whom they accrue.

A balanced approach to identifying, prioritising and evaluating all potential consequences of quality improvement: modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare is a complex system, so quality improvement will commonly lead to unintended consequences which are rarely evaluated. In previous qualitative work, we proposed a framework for considering the range of these potential consequences, in terms of their desirability and the extent to which they were predictable or expected during planning. This paper elaborates on the previous findings, using consensus methods to examine what consequences should be identified, why and how to prioritise, evaluate and interpret all identified consequences, and what stakeholders should be involved throughout this process.

DESIGN

Two-round modified Delphi consensus study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Both rounds were completed by 60 panellists from an academic, clinical or management background and experience in designing, implementing or evaluating quality improvement programmes.

RESULTS

Panellists agreed that trade-offs (expected undesirable consequences) and unpleasant surprises (unexpected undesirable consequences) should be actively considered. Measurement of harmful consequences for patients, and those with high workload or financial impact was prioritised, and their evaluation could also involve the use of qualitative methods. Clinical teams were agreed as important to involve at all stages, from identifying potential consequences, prioritising which of those to systematically evaluate, undertaking appropriate evaluation and interpreting the findings. Patients were necessary in identifying consequences, managers in identifying and prioritising, and improvement advisors in interpreting the data.

CONCLUSION

There was consensus that a balanced approach to considering all the consequences of improvement can be achieved by carefully considering predictable trade-offs from the outset and deliberately pausing after implementation to identify any unexpected surprises and make an informed decision as to whether quantitative or qualitative evaluation is needed and feasible. Stakeholders' roles in in the process of identifying, prioritising, evaluating and interpreting potential consequences should be explicitly addressed within planning and revisited during and after implementation.

Open to All: Dementia, Creativity, and Open Ecosystem Innovation

In the health arena, open innovation approaches strive to address real-world complexity through driving multi-stakeholder collaborative activities that can better identify and respond to complex health needs. This paper will argue for the value of an open ecosystem innovation approach, one that explores the full implications of what it means to be "open" in a health innovation context. To these ends, the paper will outline the origins of open innovation in the health arena, suggesting that it has become an important site for pushing the limits of open methods and challenging mainstream conceptions of the targets of health innovation. Five guiding principles for open ecosystem innovation will then be proposed, drawing on learning from the Knowledge Exchange Hubs for the Creative Economy funded by the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. These principles point to a configuration of open activities that are maximally sensitive to (1) knowledge diversity in innovation work; (2) the consequences of adopting an open-orientation across all stages of innovation programming; (3) the value of deepening and broadening the targets of innovation activity; (4) the role of mediation in supporting cross-sector partnerships; and, (5) the importance of operating in an adaptive and sustainable manner in the long-term. A follow-on project from the AHRC Hubs-Dementia Connect-sought to apply this learning to an important health focus: dementia and the role played by creative participation in delivering important health outcomes. Through Dementia Connect, the applicability of open ecosystem innovation thinking was assessed, revealing the conditions under which it might deliver innovation-led improvements to the quality of life for those living with a dementia diagnosis. A detailed blueprint for conducting open ecosystem innovation is then proposed in full-a new and comprehensive response to the complex reality of living with a dementia diagnosis today.

What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address? Insights From an International Scoping Review

Background: While responsible innovation in health (RIH) suggests that health innovations could be purposefully designed to better support health systems, little is known about the system-level challenges that it should address. The goal of this paper is thus to document what is known about health systems’ demand for innovations.

Methods: We searched 8 databases to perform a scoping review of the scientific literature on health system challenges published between January 2000 and April 2016. The challenges reported in the articles were classified using the dynamic health system framework. The countries where the studies had been conducted were grouped using the human development index (HDI). Frequency distributions and qualitative content analysis were performed.

Results: Up to 1391 challenges were extracted from 254 articles examining health systems in 99 countries. Across countries, the most frequently reported challenges pertained to: service delivery (25%), human resources (23%), and leadership and governance (21%). Our analyses indicate that innovations tend to increase challenges associated to human resources by affecting the nature and scope of their tasks, skills and responsibilities, to exacerbate service delivery issues when they are meant to be used by highly skilled providers and call for accountable governance of their dissemination, use and reimbursement. In countries with a low and medium HDI, problems arising with infrastructure, logistics and equipment were described in connection with challenges affecting procurement, supply and distribution systems. In countries with a medium and high HDI, challenges included a growing demand for drugs and new technology and the management of rising costs. Across all HDI groups, the need for flexible information technologies (IT) solutions to reach rural areas was underscored.

Conclusion: Highlighting challenges that are common across countries, this study suggests that RIH should aim to reduce the cost of innovation production processes and attend not only to the requirements of the immediate clinical context of use, but also to the vulnerabilities of the broader system wherein innovations are deployed. Policy-makers should translate system-level demand signals into innovation development opportunities since it is imperative to foster innovations that contribute to the success and sustainability of health systems

Organizational Readiness to Implement the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program in Dialysis Facilities

A gap exists between the development and uptake of evidence-based health promotion programs in health care settings. One reason for this gap is lack of attention to organizational readiness. The objective of this study was to assess organizational readiness to implement the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program in dialysis facilities. Survey data were collected from dialysis staff using a semi-structured Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change questionnaire. Change efficacy and change commitment scale ratings were all above 3.0, indicating a moderate level of readiness among staff. Profession and level of education were significantly associated with mean change efficacy scale ratings. Textual data revealed benefits to patients, implementation barriers and facilitators, and the influence of facility environment and culture. The findings of the current study suggest that additional efforts to advance the implementation of evidence-based health promotion programs in dialysis facilities are needed.

Good Catch! Using Interdisciplinary Teams and Team Reflexivity to Improve Patient Safety

Interdisciplinary teams play an important role implementing innovations that facilitate the quality and safety of patient care. This article examined the role of reflexivity in team innovation implementation and its association with an objective patient safety outcome, inpatient fall rates (a fall is an unintended downward displacement of a patient’s body to the ground or other object). In this study, we implemented, supported, and evaluated interdisciplinary teams intended to decrease fall risk in 16 small rural hospitals. These hospitals were part of a collaborative that sought to increase knowledge and facilitate reflexivity about fall event reporting and fall risk reduction structures and processes. We assessed team reflexivity at the start and at the end of the 2-year intervention and innovation implementation at the end of the intervention. The 16 hospitals reported objective fall event data and patient days throughout the project, which we used to calculate comparative rates for assisted, unassisted, and injurious falls. The results suggest that teams benefited from the intervention, increasing reflexivity from the start of the project to the end, which was related to innovation implementation and decreases in fall rates. Theoretical and practical applications of the results are discussed.

Patient Involvement in Healthcare-Associated Infection Research: A Lexical Review

OBJECTIVEThis review examines patient involvement in healthcare-associated infection (HAI) research. Healthcare-associated infections represent an intractable issue with considerable implications for patients and staff. Participatory methodologies that involve patients in healthcare research are associated with myriad benefits.DESIGNLexical review.METHODSPubMed was searched to identify all publications on patient involvement in HAI research since 2000; publications were also identified from the cited references. A lexical analysis was conducted of the methods sections of 148 publications.RESULTSThe findings reveal that HAI research that actively involves patients and members of the public is limited.CONCLUSIONSPatient involvement is largely limited to recruitment to HAI studies rather than extended to patient involvement in research design, implementation, analysis, and/or dissemination. As such, there is considerable opportunity to further this important research area via alternative methodologies that award primacy to patient expertise and agency.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:710-717.

Health systems reforms in Singapore: A qualitative study of key stakeholders

In response to a growing chronic disease burden and ageing population, Singapore implemented Regional Health Systems (RHS) in 2008. In January 2017, the MOH announced that the six RHS clusters would be reorganised into three in 2018. This qualitative study sought to identify the health system challenges, opportunities, and ways forward for the implementation of the RHS. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 key informants from RHS clusters, government, academia, and private and voluntary sectors. Integration, innovation, and people-centeredness were identified as the key principles of the RHS. The RHS was described as an opportunity to holistically care for a person across the care continuum, address social determinants of health, develop new models of care, and work with social and community partners. Challenges to RHS implementation included difficulties aligning the goals, values, and priorities of multiple actors, the need for better integration across clusters, differing care capabilities and capacities across partners, healthcare financing structures that may not reflect RHS goals, scalability and evaluation of pilot programmes, and disease-centricity, provider-centricity, and medicalisation in health and healthcare. Suggested ways forward included building relationships between actors to facilitate integration; exploring innovative new models of care; clear long-term/scale-up plans for successful pilots; healthcare financing reforms to meet changing patient and population needs; and developing evaluation systems reflective of RHS principles and priorities.

Treatment Is Worth a Lot - But Just How Much

More than at any other time in history, science offers enormous potential to transform the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. However, patients are urgently awaiting new therapies - and too often not getting them. And researchers and companies also face significant development obstacles as only one in ten drugs entering clinical trials ever makes it over the finish line. This article looks at the issues involved in bringing innovation into healthcare systems from a political and policy level. It takes a close look at Health Technology Assessment (HTA) across Member States, how it is working and, more to the point, how it isn't, and how it often serves to stymie the introduction of new medicines by undermining the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The article argues that the EU could strengthen HTA cooperation via a common framework, and promote higher quality and fairer assessments; while joint work could reduce duplication of efforts, and promote better synergies as well as better use of Member States' resources. The author also takes an in-depth look into criticism of private-sector pricing of innovative medicines in the light of discussions about what constitutes “value” in the context of new treatments - a discussion that shows no signs of abating - while advocating enhanced contact and the need for compromise between all stakeholders in the great value debate.

Balancing measures or a balanced accounting of improvement impact: a qualitative analysis of individual and focus group interviews with improvement experts in Scotland

BACKGROUND

As quality improvement (QI) programmes have become progressively larger scale, the risks of implementation having unintended consequences are increasingly recognised. More routine use of balancing measures to monitor unintended consequences has been proposed to evaluate overall effectiveness, but in practice published improvement interventions hardly ever report identification or measurement of consequences other than intended goals of improvement.

METHODS

We conducted 15 semistructured interviews and two focus groups with 24 improvement experts to explore the current understanding of balancing measures in QI and inform a more balanced accounting of the overall impact of improvement interventions. Data were analysed iteratively using the framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants described the consequences of improvement in terms of desirability/undesirability and the extent to which they were expected/unexpected when planning improvement. Four types of consequences were defined: expected desirable consequences (goals); expected undesirable consequences (trade-offs); unexpected undesirable consequences (unpleasant surprises); and unexpected desirable consequences (pleasant surprises). Unexpected consequences were considered important but rarely measured in existing programmes, and an improvement pause to take stock after implementation would allow these to be more actively identified and managed. A balanced accounting of all consequences of improvement interventions can facilitate staff engagement and reduce resistance to change, but has to be offset against the cost of additional data collection.

CONCLUSION

Improvement measurement is usually focused on measuring intended goals, with minimal use of balancing measures which when used, typically monitor trade-offs expected before implementation. This paper proposes that improvers and leaders should seek a balanced accounting of all consequences of improvement across the life of an improvement programme, including deliberately pausing after implementation to identify and quantitatively or qualitatively evaluate any pleasant or unpleasant surprises.

Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies

Background: New technologies constitute an important cost-driver in healthcare, but the dynamics that lead to their emergence remains poorly understood from a health policy standpoint. The goal of this paper is to clarify how entrepreneurs, investors, and regulatory agencies influence the value of emerging health technologies.

Methods: Our 5-year qualitative research program examined the processes through which new health technologies were envisioned, financed, developed and commercialized by entrepreneurial clinical teams operating in Quebec’s (Canada) publicly funded healthcare system.

Results: Entrepreneurs have a direct influence over a new technology’s value proposition, but investors actively transform this value. Investors support a technology that can find a market, no matter its intrinsic value for clinical practice or healthcare systems. Regulatory agencies reinforce the "double" value of a new technology—as a health intervention and as an economic commodity—and provide economic worth to the venture that is bringing the technology to market.

Conclusion: Policy-oriented initiatives such as early health technology assessment (HTA) and coverage with evidence may provide technology developers with useful input regarding the decisions they make at an early stage. But to foster technologies that bring more value to healthcare systems, policy-makers must actively support the consideration of health policy issues in innovation policy.

What is the impact of innovation on output in healthcare with a special focus on treatment innovations in radiotherapy? A literature review

Objective:

To analyse how often innovations in healthcare are evaluated regarding output, especially in radiotherapy. Output was defined as either survival, toxicity, safety, service, efficiency or cost-effectiveness.

Methods:

A systematic literature review was conducted, using three search strategies: (1) innovations in general healthcare; (2) radiotherapy-specific innovations, i.e. organizational innovations and general implementation of innovations; (3) innovations per tumour group/radiotherapy technique. Scientific levels were classified according to the system used in European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. Finally, we calculated the percentage of implemented innovations in Dutch radiotherapy centres for which we found evidence regarding output in the literature review.

Results:

Only 94/1072 unique articles matched the inclusion criteria. Significant results on patient outcome, service or safety were reported in 65% of papers, which rose to 76% if confined to radiotherapy reviews. A significant technological improvement was identified in 26%, cost-effectiveness in 10% and costs/efficiency in 36% of the papers. The scientific level of organizational innovations was lower than that of clinical papers. Dutch radiotherapy treatment innovations were adequately evaluated on outcome data before implementation in clinical routine in a minimum of 64–92% of cases.

Conclusion:

Only few studies report on output when considering innovations in general, but radiotherapy reviews give a reasonably good insight into innovation output effects, with a higher level of evidence. In Dutch radiotherapy centres only small improvements are possible regarding evaluation of treatment innovations before implementation.

Advances in knowledge:

This study is the first of its kind measuring how innovations are evaluated in scientific literature, before implementation in clinical practice.

Exploring the adoption of Schwartz Center Rounds as an organisational innovation to improve staff well-being in England, 2009-2015

OBJECTIVES

Schwartz Center Rounds ('Rounds') are a multidisciplinary forum in which healthcare staff within an organisation discuss the psychological, emotional and social challenges associated with their work in a confidential and safe environment. Implemented in over 375 North American organisations, since 2009, they have been increasingly adopted in England. This study aimed to establish how many and what types of organisations have adopted Rounds in England, and to explore why they did so.

SETTING

Public healthcare organisations in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Secondary data analysis was used to map and profile all 116 public healthcare organisations that had adopted Rounds in England by July 2015. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 45 Round coordinators within adopting organisations.

RESULTS

The rate of adoption increased after a major national report in 2013. Rounds were typically adopted in order to improve staff well-being. Adopting organisations scored better on staff engagement than non-adopters; among adopting organisations, those performing better on patient experience were more likely to adopt earlier. Most adoption decision-making processes were straightforward. A confluence of factors-a generally favourable set of innovation attributes (including low cost), advocacy from opinion leaders in different professional networks, active dissemination by change agents and a felt need to be seen to be addressing staff well-being-initially led to Rounds being seen as 'an idea whose time had come'. More recent adoption patterns have been shaped by the timing of charitable and other agency funding in specific geographical areas and sectors, as well as several forms of 'mimetic pressure'.

CONCLUSIONS

The innate attributes of Rounds, favourable circumstances and the cumulative impact of a sequence of distinct informal and formal social processes have shaped the pattern of their adoption in England.

Triage, treatment and transfer of patients with stroke in emergency department trial (the T3 Trial): a cluster randomised trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Internationally recognised evidence-based guidelines recommend appropriate triage of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs), administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and proactive management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing before prompt transfer to a stroke unit to maximise outcomes. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness in EDs of a theory-informed, nurse-initiated, intervention to improve multidisciplinary triage, treatment and transfer (T3) of patients with acute stroke to improve 90-day death and dependency. Organisational and contextual factors associated with intervention uptake also will be evaluated.

METHODS

This prospective, multicentre, parallel group, cluster randomised trial with blinded outcome assessment will be conducted in EDs of hospitals with stroke units in three Australian states and one territory. EDs will be randomised 1:1 within strata defined by state and tPA volume to receive either the T3 intervention or no additional support (control EDs). Our T3 intervention comprises an evidence-based care bundle targeting: (1) triage: routine assignment of patients with suspected stroke to Australian Triage Scale category 1 or 2; (2) treatment: screening for tPA eligibility and administration of tPA where applicable; instigation of protocols for management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing; and (3) transfer: prompt admission to the stroke unit. We will use implementation science behaviour change methods informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework [1, 2] consisting of (i) workshops to determine barriers and local solutions; (ii) mixed interactive and didactic education; (iii) local clinical opinion leaders; and (iv) reminders in the form of email, telephone and site visits. Our primary outcome measure is 90 days post-admission death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale >2). Secondary outcomes are health status (SF-36), functional dependency (Barthel Index), quality of life (EQ-5D); and quality of care outcomes, namely, monitoring and management practices for thrombolysis, fever, hyperglycaemia, swallowing and prompt transfer. Outcomes will be assessed at the patient level. A separate process evaluation will examine contextual factors to successful intervention uptake. At the time of publication, EDs have been randomised and the intervention is being implemented.

DISCUSSION

This theoretically informed intervention is aimed at addressing important gaps in care to maximise 90-day health outcomes for patients with stroke.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000939695 . Registered 2 September 2014.

A Survey of Hospitals That Participated in a Statewide Collaborative to Implement and Sustain Rapid Response Teams

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of sustainability of rapid response teams (RRTs) among a group of hospitals that participated in a statewide collaborative to implement and sustain RRTs.

SETTING AND SAMPLE

Fifty-six hospitals located in a southeastern state in the United States participated in a statewide 9-month collaborative that provided organization leaders with resources to implement and sustain RRTs. Thirty-three of these hospitals completed the electronic survey. Two hospitals were excluded because of missing data.

MEASUREMENT

The RRT-Institutionalization Scale (RRT-IS), adapted from the Level of Institutionalization Scale, measured the degree of institutionalization (i.e., passages, routines, and niche saturation) across four subsystems: production, maintenance, supportive, and managerial.

RESULTS

Thirty-one hospitals participated (response rate 55%). Rapid response team sustainability levels ranged from 1.0 to 5.98 (mean = 3.78, 95% CI = 3.40-4.17). The highest sustainability score was reported in the managerial subsystem (median = 5.3, IQR = 4.5-7.33), and the lowest score was reported in the supportive subsystem (median = 1.0, IQR = 1.0-2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid response team sustainability levels varied across hospitals in the collaborative. Different levels of sustainability were also observed across organizational subsystems. The lack of resources, staff, and dedicated funds hampered organizations' sustainability efforts.

Clinical Information Systems - From Yesterday to Tomorrow

OBJECTIVES

To review the history of clinical information systems over the past twenty-five years and project anticipated changes to those systems over the next twenty-five years.

METHODS

Over 250 Medline references about clinical information systems, quality of patient care, and patient safety were reviewed. Books, Web resources, and the author's personal experience with developing the HELP system were also used.

RESULTS

There have been dramatic improvements in the use and acceptance of clinical computing systems and Electronic Health Records (EHRs), especially in the United States. Although there are still challenges with the implementation of such systems, the rate of progress has been remarkable. Over the next twenty-five years, there will remain many important opportunities and challenges. These opportunities include understanding complex clinical computing issues that must be studied, understood and optimized. Dramatic improvements in quality of care and patient safety must be anticipated as a result of the use of clinical information systems. These improvements will result from a closer involvement of clinical informaticians in the optimization of patient care processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical information systems and computerized clinical decision support have made contributions to medicine in the past. Therefore, by using better medical knowledge, optimized clinical information systems, and computerized clinical decision, we will enable dramatic improvements in both the quality and safety of patient care in the next twenty-five years.

It could be a 'Golden Goose': a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation

BACKGROUND

Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients' risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers' attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use.

METHODS

We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of 'coherence' within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose.

RESULTS

Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212 .