From pilot project to system solution: innovation, spread and scale for health system leaders

Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework: a qualitative study of implementation through a Canadian learning collaborative

BACKGROUND

The Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework (MMSF) aims to move beyond a narrow focus on measurement and past harmful events as the major focus for safety in healthcare organisations. There is limited evidence of MMSF implementation and impact.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine participants' perspectives and experiences to increase understanding of the adaptive work of implementing the MMSF through a learning collaborative programme in diverse healthcare contexts across Canada.

METHODS

The Collaborative consisted of 11 teams from seven provinces. We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 36 participants, observations of 5 sites and learning sessions, and collection of documents.

RESULTS

Collaborative sessions and coaching allowed participants to explore reliability, sensitivity to operations, anticipation and preparedness, and integration and learning, in addition to past harm, and move beyond a project and measurement oriented safety approach. Participants noted the importance of time dedicated to engaging stakeholders in talk about MMSF concepts and their significance to their settings, prior to moving to implementing the Framework into practice. While participants generally started with a small number of ways of integrating the MMSF into practice such as rounds or huddles, many teams continued to experiment with incorporating the MMSF into a range of practices. Participants reported changes in thinking about safety, discussions and behaviours, which were perceived to impact healthcare processes. However, participants also reported challenges to sharing the Framework broadly and moving beyond its surface implementation, and difficulties with its sustained and widespread use given misalignments with existing quality and safety processes.

CONCLUSION

The MMSF requires a dramatic departure from traditional safety strategies that focus on discrete problems and emphasise measurement. MMSF implementation requires extensive discussion, coaching and experimentation. Future implementation should consider engaging local leaders and coaches and an organisation or system approach to enable broader reach and systemic change.

Identifying core strategies and mechanisms for spreading a national medicines optimisation programme across England-a mixed-method study applying qualitative thematic analysis and Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Background

Achieving widespread adoption of innovations across health systems remains a challenge. Past efforts have focused on identifying and classifying strategies to actively support innovation spread (replicating an innovation across sites), but we lack an understanding about the mechanisms which such strategies draw on to deliver successful spread outcomes. There is also no established methodology to identify core strategies or mechanisms which could be replicated with fidelity in new contexts when spreading innovations. We aimed to understand which strategies and mechanisms are connected with successful spread using the case of a national medicines optimisation programme in England.

Methods

The study applied a comparative mixed-method case study approach. We compared spread activity in 15 Academic Health Science Networks (AHSN) in England, applied to one innovation case, Transfers of Care Around Medicines (TCAM). We followed two methodological steps: (1) qualitative thematic analysis of primary data collected from 18 interviews with AHSN staff members to identify the strategies and mechanisms and related contextual determinants and (2) Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) combining secondary quantitative data on spread outcome and qualitative themes from step 1 to identify the core strategies and mechanisms.

Results

We identified six common spread strategy-mechanism constructs that AHSNs applied to spread the TCAM national spread programme: (1) the unique intermediary position of the AHSN as “honest broker” and local networking organisation, (2) the right capacity and position of the spread facilitator, (3) an intersectoral and integrated stakeholder engagement approach, (4) the dynamic marriage of the innovation with local health and care system needs and characteristics, (5) the generation of local evidence, and (6) the timing of TCAM. The QCA resulted in the core strategy/mechanism of a timely start into the national spread programme in combination with the employment of a local, senior pharmacist as an AHSN spread facilitator.

Conclusions

By qualitatively comparing experiences of spreading one innovation across different contexts, we identified common strategies, causal mechanisms, and contextual determinants. The QCA identified one core combination of two strategies/mechanisms. The identification of core strategies/mechanisms and common pre-conditional and mediating contextual determinants of a specific innovation offers spread facilitators and implementers a priority list for tailoring spread activities.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00364-5.

Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

Evaluation of a Dragons' Den-inspired symposium to spread primary health care innovations in Quebec, Canada: a mixed-methods study using quality-improvement e-surveys

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2017, the Quebec College of Family Physicians held an innovation symposium inspired by the television show Dragons' Den, at which innovators pitched their innovations to Dragon-Facilitators (i.e., decision-makers) and academic family medicine clinical leads. We evaluated the effects of the symposium on the spread of primary health care innovations.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of the symposium. We collected data related to Rogers' innovation-decision process using 3 quality-improvement e-surveys (distributed between May 2017 and February 2018). The first survey evaluated spread outputs (innovation discovery, intention to spread, improvements) and was sent to all participants immediately after the symposium. The second evaluated short-term spread outcomes (follow-ups, successes, barriers) and was sent to innovators 3 months after the symposium. The third evaluated medium-term spread outcomes (spread, perceived impact) and was sent to innovators and clinical leads 9 months after the symposium. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, content analysis and joint display.

RESULTS

Fifty-one innovators, 66 clinical leads (representing 42 clinics) and 37 Dragon-Facilitators attended the symposium. The response rates for the surveys were 61% (82/134) for the immediate post-symposium survey of all participants; 68% (21/31) for the 3-month survey of innovators; and 49% (48/97) for the 9-month survey of clinical leads and innovators. Immediately after the symposium, clinical leads and Dragon-Facilitators reported a high likelihood of adopting an innovation (mean ± standard deviation 8.02 ± 1.63 on a 10-point Likert scale) and 87% (53/61) agreed that they had discovered innovations at the symposium. Nearly all innovators (95%, 20/21) intended to follow up with potential adopters. After 3 months, 62% (13/21) of innovators had followed up in some way. After 9 months, 72% of clinical leads (18/25) had implemented at least 1 innovation, and 52% of innovators (12/23) had spread or were in the process of spreading innovations.

INTERPRETATION

The innovation symposium supported participants in achieving the early stages of spreading primary health care innovations. Replicating such symposia may help spread other health care innovations.

Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Scaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.

The role of trained champions in sustaining and spreading nutrition care improvements in hospital: qualitative interviews following an implementation study

BACKGROUND

Many patients are already malnourished when admitted to hospital. Barriers and facilitators to nutrition care in hospital have been identified and successful interventions developed; however, few studies have explored how to sustain and spread improvements. The More-2-Eat phase 1 study involved five hospitals across Canada implementing nutrition care improvements, while phase 2 implemented a scalable model using trained champions, audit and feedback, a community of practice with external mentorship and an implementation toolkit in 10 hospitals (four continuing from phase 1). Process measures showed that screening and assessment from phase 1 were sustained for at least 4 years. The objective of this study was to help explain how these nutrition care improvements were sustained and spread by understanding the role of the trained champions, and to confirm and expand on themes identified in phase 1.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with champions from each phase 2 hospital and recordings transcribed verbatim. To explore the champion role, transcripts were deductively coded to the 3C model of Concept, Competence and Capacity. Phase 2 transcripts were also deductively coded to themes identified in phase 1 interviews and focus groups.

RESULTS

Ten interviews (n=14 champions) were conducted. To sustain and spread nutrition care improvements, champions needed to understand the Concepts of change management, implementation, adaptation, sustainability and spread in order to embed changes into routine practice. Champions also needed the Competence, including the skills to identify, support and empower new champions, thus sharing the responsibility. Capacity, including time, resources and leadership support, was the most important facilitator for staying engaged, and the most challenging. All themes identified in qualitative interviews in phase 1 were applicable 4 years later and were mentioned by new phase 2 hospitals. There was increased emphasis on audit and feedback, and the need for standardisation to support embedding into current practice.

CONCLUSION

Trained local champions were required for implementation. By understanding key concepts, with appropriate and evolving competence and capacity, champions supported sustainability and spread of nutrition care improvements. Understanding the role of champions in supporting implementation, spread and sustainability of nutrition care improvements can help other hospitals when planning for and implementing these improvements.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02800304, NCT03391752.

Trialists perspectives on sustaining, spreading, and scaling-up of quality improvement interventions

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) evaluations rarely consider how a successful intervention can be sustained long term, nor how to spread or scale to other locations. A survey of authors of randomized trials of diabetes QI interventions included in an ongoing systematic review found that 78% of trials reported improved quality of care, but 40% of these trials were not sustained. This study explores why and how the effective interventions were sustained, spread, or scaled.

METHODS

A qualitative approach was used, focusing on case examples. Diabetes QI program trial authors were purposefully sampled and recruited for telephone interviews. Authors were eligible if they had completed the author survey, agreed to follow-up, and had a completed a diabetes QI trial they deemed "effective." Snowball sampling was used if the participant identified someone who could provide a different perspective on the same trial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators to sustainability, spread, and/or scale of the QI program, using case examples to show trajectories across projects and people.

RESULTS

Eleven of 44 eligible trialists participated in an interview. Four reported that the intervention was "sustained" and nine were "spread," however, interviews highlighted that these terms were interpreted differently over time and between participants. Participant stories highlighted the varied trajectories of how projects evolved and how some research careers adapted to increase impact. Three interacting themes, termed the "3C's," helped explain the variation in sustainability, spread, and scale: (i) understanding the concepts of implementation, sustainability, sustainment, spread, and scale; (ii) having the appropriate competencies; and (iii) the need for individual, organizational, and system capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges in defining sustainability, spread and scale make it difficult to fully understand impact. However, it is clear that from the beginning of intervention design, trialists need to understand the concepts and have the competency and capacity to plan for feasible and sustainable interventions that have potential to be sustained, spread and/or scaled if found to be effective.

Perspectives of paediatric hospital staff on factors influencing the sustainability and spread of a safety quality improvement programme

OBJECTIVE

Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE) is a quality improvement programme aiming to improve situation awareness in paediatric clinical teams. The aim of our study was to examine hospital staff perceptions of the facilitators and barriers/challenges to the sustaining and subsequent spread of the huddle, the key intervention of the SAFE programme.

SETTING

Interviews were held on two wards in two children hospitals and on two children wards in two district general hospitals.

METHOD

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 staff members from four National Health Service paediatric wards. A deductive thematic analysis was conducted, drawing on an existing framework, which groups the factors influencing programme sustainability into four categories: innovation, leadership, process and context.

PARTICIPANTS

23 staff in two children's hospitals and two children's wards across four UK hospitals, comprising of nurses and doctors, administration or housekeeping staff, ward managers and matrons, and allied professionals.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Understanding factors contributing to the sustaining and spread of a quality improvement intervention.

RESULTS

Perceptions of the benefits, purpose and fit of the huddle, team commitment, sharing learning, adaptation of the method and senior leadership were identified as facilitators. High staff turnover, large multiple specialty medical staff teams, lack of senior leadership and dislike of change were identified as barriers/challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Sustaining and spreading quality improvement interventions in a complex clinical setting requires understanding of the interplay between the actual innovation and existing leadership, process and contextual factors. These must be considered at the planning stage of an innovation to maximise the potential for sustainability and spread to other settings.

Conceptualizing interprofessional working - when a lawyer joins the healthcare mix

Research, policy and practice in the field of interprofessional collaboration have focused on how medical, nursing, allied health and social care practitioners work together to positively impact patient care. This paper extends conceptual thinking about interprofessional practice by focusing on lawyers as part of the interprofessional mix. This attention is prompted by medical-legal partnerships (MLPs), a service model by which lawyers join health care settings to assist patients with unmet, and often health-harming, legal needs. MLPs are present in around 450 hospitals and other health care sites across the United States and the model has spread to other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. However, enthusiasm for the MLP model is not yet matched by good evidence on how, when and for whom the model works. Interprofessional scholars contend that imprecise terminology and poor conceptualization of interprofessional arrangements hinder high-quality research and evaluation. In response to their critiques, this paper formulates a stepwise conceptual framework to guide the design, implementation and study of interprofessional arrangements that connect health, social care and legal practitioners. This framework draws on findings from national surveys of MLP initiatives in several countries and adapts several key conceptual frameworks that have been developed from systematic reviews of interprofessional working in primary health care. These conceptual frameworks are valuable because they promote clarity about different modes of interprofessional working and characterize the factors at macro (policy, funding), meso (organizational) and micro (practitioner, patient) levels that help or hinder professionals from different disciplines in working together. The paper considers factors at these three levels that require particular attention when lawyers join health care settings and proposes questions for future research in this emerging area.

Assessing the scalability of innovations in primary care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Canadian health funding currently prioritizes scaling up for evidence-based primary care innovations, but not all teams prepare for scaling up. We explored scalability assessment among primary care innovators in the province of Quebec to evaluate their preparedness for scaling up.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey from Feb. 18 to Mar. 18, 2019. Eligible participants were 33 innovation teams selected for the 2019 Quebec College of Family Physicians' Symposium on Innovations. We conducted a Web-based survey in 2 sections: innovation characteristics and the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire. The latter includes 16 criteria (scalability components) grouped into 5 dimensions: theory (1 criterion), impact (6 criteria), coverage (4 criteria), setting (3 criteria) and cost (2 criteria). We classified innovation types using the International Classification of Health Interventions. We performed a descriptive analysis using frequency counts and percentages.

RESULTS

Out of 33 teams, 24 participated (72.7%), with 1 innovation each. The types of innovation were management (15/24), prevention (8/24) and therapeutic (1/24). Most management innovations focused on patient navigation (9/15). In order of frequency, teams had assessed theory (79.2%) and impact (79.2%) criteria, followed by cost (77.1%), setting (59.7%) and coverage (54.2%). Most innovations (16/24) had assessed 10 criteria or more, including 10 management innovations, 5 prevention innovations and 1 therapeutic innovation. Implementation fidelity was the least assessed criterion (6/24).

INTERPRETATION

The scalability assessments of a primary care innovation varied according to its type. Management innovations, which were the most prevalent and assessed the most scalability components, appear to be most prepared for primary care scale-up in Canada.

Bridging the Gap Between Radiology and Primary Care: Expansion and Sustainability of a Medical Imaging Call Center Model

OBJECTIVES

The Medical Imaging Call Centre (MICC) was an initiative carried out by a hospital-based academic imaging department with the aim to provide navigational services and radiologist consultations to community-based primary care physicians (PCPs). The strategies used to expand and sustain the initiative over a 3.5-year period after an initial pilot are described.

METHODS

The strategy to evolve the MICC had internal and external components. Internally, processes were refined to ensure satisfaction of stakeholders. Externally, a robust engagement strategy focused on recruiting and engaging callers was implemented. Metrics including call volumes, unique callers, and call type were monitored to track utilization and further inform the engagement strategy. A reduction in avoidable use of the emergency department (ED) was determined by tracking pre- and post radiologist consultation decisions reported by callers.

RESULTS

During the evaluation period, 2,297 calls were made. There was a 39% increase in the average number of monthly calls in the last 6-month period (61) compared with the first 6 months (44). Call types that involved PCP-to-radiologist communication for patient management consultation also increased over time. A 98% ED avoidance rate (215 of 220) was reported for calls in which PCPs initially indicated that they would be sending their patients to the ED for urgent imaging if the MICC were unavailable.

DISCUSSION

The MICC was successful in connecting community-based PCPs with hospital-based subspecialized radiologists. Results indicate that an active engagement strategy is necessary and can lead to changes in patient management that will decrease the burden on other specialists.

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.

Moving enhanced recovery after surgery from implementation to sustainability across a health system: a qualitative assessment of leadership perspectives

Background

Knowledge Translation evidence from health care practitioners and administrators implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care has allowed for the spread and scale of the health care innovation. There is a need to identify at a health system level, what it takes from a leadership perspective to move from implementation to sustainability over time. The purpose of this research was to systematically synthesize feedback from health care leaders to inform further spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS care across a health system.

Methods

Alberta Health Services (AHS) is the largest Canadian health system with approximately 280,000 surgeries annually at more than 50 surgical sites. In 2013 to 2014, AHS used a structured approach to successfully implement ERAS colorectal guidelines at six sites. Between 2016 and 2018, three of the six sites expanded ERAS to other surgical areas (gynecologic oncology, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy/Whipple’s, and cystectomy). This research was designed to explore and learn from the experiences of health care leaders involved in the AHS ERAS implementation expansion (eg. surgical care unit, hospital site or provincial program) and build on the model for knowledge mobilization develop during implementation. Following informed consent, leaders were interviewed using a structured interview guide. Data were recorded, coded and analyzed qualitatively through a combination of theory-driven immersion and crystallization, and template coding using NVivo 12.

Results

Forty-four individuals (13 physician leaders, 19 leading clinicians and hospital administrators, and 11 provincial leaders) were interviewed. Themes were identified related to Supportive Environments including resources, data, leadership; Champion and Nurse coordinator role; and Capacity Building through change management, education, and teams. The perception and role of leaders changed through initiation and implementation, spread, and sustainability. Barriers and enablers were thematically aligned relative to outcome assessment, consistency of implementation, ERAS care compliance, and the implementation of multiple guidelines.

Conclusions

Health care leaders have unique perspectives and approaches to support spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS that are different from site based ERAS teams. These findings inform us what leaders need to do or need to do differently to support implementation and to foster spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS.

A practical model for research with learning health systems: Building and implementing effective complex case management

For researchers to contribute meaningfully to the creation of learning health systems, practical tools are required to operationalize existing conceptual frameworks. We describe a model currently in use by the University of Wisconsin Health Innovation Program (HIP). The HIP model consolidates and enhances existing learning health system frameworks by defining specific steps needed to create sustainable change based on research conducted within the health system. As an example of the model's application, we describe its use to improve patient identification for the University of Wisconsin health system's case management program. Our case study shows the importance of culture, infrastructure, and strong leadership support in realizing a learning health systems research project and creating sustainable change within the health system. By articulating the foundational elements and steps to conduct research with learning health systems, our model supports researchers in achieving the challenge of moving learning health systems from concept to action.

Identifying and Overcoming Policy-Level Barriers to the Implementation of Digital Health Innovation: Qualitative Study

Background

High-level policy barriers impede widespread adoption for even the most well-positioned innovations. Most of the work in this field assumes rather than analyzes the driving forces of health innovation. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the challenges and opportunities experienced by health system stakeholders in the implementation of digital health innovation in Ontario.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the challenges and opportunities experienced by health system stakeholders in the implementation of digital health innovation in Ontario.

Methods

We completed semistructured interviews with 10 members of senior leadership across key organizations that are engaged in health care–related digital health activities. Data were analyzed using qualitative description.

Results

A total of 6 key policy priorities emerged, including the need for (1) a system-level definition of innovation, (2) a clear overarching mission, and (3) clearly defined organizational roles. Operationally, there is a need to (4) standardize processes, (5) shift the emphasis to change management, and (6) align funding structures.

Conclusions

These findings emphasize the critical role of the government in developing a vision and creating the foundation upon which innovation activities will be modeled.

The Sustain and Spread Framework: strategies for sustaining and spreading nutrition care improvements in acute care based on thematic analysis from the More-2-Eat study

BACKGROUND

Successful improvements in health care practice need to be sustained and spread to have maximum benefit. The rationale for embedding sustainability from the beginning of implementation is well recognized; however, strategies to sustain and spread successful initiatives are less clearly described. The aim of this study is to identify strategies used by hospital staff and management to sustain and spread successful nutrition care improvements in Canadian hospitals.

METHODS

The More-2-Eat project used participatory action research to improve nutrition care practices. Five hospital units in four Canadian provinces had one year to improve the detection, treatment, and monitoring of malnourished patients. Each hospital had a champion and interdisciplinary site implementation team to drive changes. After the year (2016) of implementing new practices, site visits were completed at each hospital to conduct key informant interviews (n = 45), small group discussions (4 groups; n = 10), and focus groups (FG) (11 FG; n = 71) (total n = 126) with staff and management to identify enablers and barriers to implementing and sustaining the initiative. A year after project completion (early 2018) another round of interviews (n = 12) were conducted to further understand sustaining and spreading the initiative to other units or hospitals. Verbatim transcription was completed for interviews. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts, FG notes, and context memos was completed.

RESULTS

After implementation, sites described a culture change with respect to nutrition care, where new activities were viewed as the expected norm and best practice. Strategies to sustain changes included: maintaining the new routine; building intrinsic motivation; continuing to collect and report data; and engaging new staff and management. Strategies to spread included: being responsive to opportunities; considering local context and readiness; and making it easy to spread. Strategies that supported both sustaining and spreading included: being and staying visible; and maintaining roles and supporting new champions.

CONCLUSIONS

The More-2-Eat project led to a culture of nutrition care that encouraged lasting positive impact on patient care. Strategies to spread and sustain these improvements are summarized in the Sustain and Spread Framework, which has potential for use in other settings and implementation initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800304 , June 7, 2016.

Assessment of scalability of evidence-based innovations in community-based primary health care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded 12 community-based primary health care research teams to develop evidence-based innovations. We aimed to explore the scalability of these innovations.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we invited the 12 teams to rate their evidence-based innovations for scalability. Based on a systematic review, we developed a self-administered questionnaire with 16 scalability assessment criteria grouped into 5 dimensions (theory, impact, coverage, setting and cost). Teams completed a questionnaire for each of their innovations. We analyzed the data using simple frequency counts and hierarchical cluster analysis. We calculated the mean number and standard deviation (SD) of innovations that met criteria within each dimension that included more than 1 criterion. The analysis unit was the innovation.

RESULTS

The 11 responding teams evaluated 33 evidence-based innovations (median 3, range 1-8 per team). The innovations focused on access to care and chronic disease prevention and management, and varied from health interventions to methodological innovations. Most of the innovations were health interventions (n = 21), followed by analytical methods (n = 4), conceptual frameworks (n = 4), measures (n = 3) and strategies to build research capacity (n = 1). Most (29) met criteria in the theory dimension, followed by impact (mean 22.3 [SD 5.6] innovations per dimension), setting (mean 21.7 [SD 8.5]), cost (mean 17.5 [SD 2.1]) and coverage (mean 14.0 [SD 4.1]). On average, the innovations met 10 of the 16 criteria. Adoption was the least assessed criterion (n = 9). Most (20) of the innovations were highly ranked for scalability.

INTERPRETATION

Scalability varied among innovations, which suggests that readiness for scale up was suboptimal for some innovations. Coverage remained largely unaddressed; further investigation of this critical dimension is necessary.