Contextual factors and mechanisms in the implementation of Value Stream Mapping in breast cancer centres - A multiple case study

INTRODUCTION

Lean, especially Value Stream Mapping is increasingly used in hospitals to optimize processes. This method, which originated in the automotive industry, enables all staff involved in the process to make it more customer-friendly. Despite the widely reported success of Lean projects, they have failed in some cases. This study investigated the contextual factors and mechanisms that contribute to a successful implementation of Value Stream Mapping.

METHODS

Value Stream Mapping was applied to the discharge process in four breast cancer centers. A mixed-method approach was used in two steps. First, to verify the successful implementation, defined as time optimization, time measurement was conducted at three points in time and analyzed using an ANOVA. Second, an analysis of contextual factors was combined with a qualitative content analysis of mechanisms based on normalization process theory, using routine data, meeting protocols, field notes, and interview transcripts as data source.

RESULTS

At one of the four breast cancer centers, lead- and waiting time were significantly reduced; at the others, these reductions did not occur. Failure/success cannot be explained by the size of the hospital, the number of cases or staffing levels. The variable project team composition is evident, especially leadership involvement.

DISCUSSION

A comparative analysis was conducted to identify the factors that led to success. These factors were: participation of all leaders relevant to the process, in the case of the discharge process including medical and nursing leaders; dissemination of the changes from the project team to colleagues including its sense and possibility to discuss it; joint reflection of the implementation process in regular work team meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the important role of leadership in implementation projects. Leadership support enabled the mechanisms found. The used combination of theoretical approaches from management research and implementation science determined the interpretation and should be applied more often in implementation science.

Shared Decision-making in the U.S.: Evidence exists, but implementation science must now inform policy for real change to occur

Shared decision making (SDM) is defined as an approach in which clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and in which patients are supported to consider options to achieve informed preferences [1]. Over the past decade, SDM has been increasingly recognized as a component of value-based care in the US. There is greater acceptance overall that SDM is a key strategy for achieving patient-centered care, enhancing patient safety, and achieving the triple aim of better health, better care, and lower costs [2]. Essential elements of SDM include recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence on risks and benefits; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision [3]. This paper provides an update of our previous review of SDM in the US published in 2017. We describe changes in healthcare policies to support SDM at the federal and state levels, the integration of SDM into clinical practice, and the role of implementation science to advance SDM. Finally, we discuss potential next steps to inform policies for SDM and facilitate uptake of SDM in clinical practice.

Milestones, barriers and beacons: Shared decision making in Canada inches ahead

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) remains as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans - ten provincial, three territorial and one federal. The healthcare research funding environment has been largely positive for SDM because there was funding for knowledge translation research which also encompassed SDM. The funding climate currently places new emphasis on patient involvement in research and on patient empowerment in healthcare. SDM fields have expanded from primary care to elder care, paediatrics, emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, nutrition, occupational therapy and workplace rehabilitation. Also, SDM has reached out to embrace other health-related decisions including about home care and social care and has been adapted to Aboriginal decision making needs. Canadian researchers have developed new interprofessional SDM models that are being used worldwide. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but there are provincial initiatives in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Decision aids are routinely used in some areas, for example for prostate cancer in Saskatchewan, and many others are available for online consultation. The Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario maintains an international inventory of decision aids appraised with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The Canada Research Chair in SDM and Knowledge Translation in Quebec City maintains a website of SDM training programs available worldwide. These initiatives are positive, but the future of SDM in Canada depends on whether health policies, health professionals and the public culture fully embrace it.