Determining the predictors of innovation implementation in healthcare: a quantitative analysis of implementation effectiveness

BMC Health Services Research

Morris Weinberger²  Michael Christian⁴  David A Hofmann⁴  Bryce B Reeve³  Bryan J Weiner⁵  Sara R Jacobs¹ 

[1] Public Health Research Division, RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park 27709-2194, NC, USA;Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Department of Veterans Affairs, Durham, North Carolina, USA;Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;Department of Organizational Behavior, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

关键词: Community clinical oncology program;    Innovation implementation framework;    Implementation climate;    Implementation effectiveness;    Innovation;   

Others  :  1089856
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0657-3

 received in 2014-05-01, accepted in 2014-12-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The failure rates for implementing complex innovations in healthcare organizations are high. Estimates range from 30% to 90% depending on the scope of the organizational change involved, the definition of failure, and the criteria to judge it. The innovation implementation framework offers a promising approach to examine the organizational factors that determine effective implementation. To date, the utility of this framework in a healthcare setting has been limited to qualitative studies and/or group level analyses. Therefore, the goal of this study was to quantitatively examine this framework among individual participants in the National Cancer Institute’s Community Clinical Oncology Program using structural equation modeling.

Methods

We examined the innovation implementation framework using structural equation modeling (SEM) among 481 physician participants in the National Cancer Institute’s Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). The data sources included the CCOP Annual Progress Reports, surveys of CCOP physician participants and administrators, and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile.

Results

Overall the final model fit well. Our results demonstrated that not only did perceptions of implementation climate have a statistically significant direct effect on implementation effectiveness, but physicians’ perceptions of implementation climate also mediated the relationship between organizational implementation policies and practices (IPP) and enrollment (p <0.05). In addition, physician factors such as CCOP PI status, age, radiological oncologists, and non-oncologist specialists significantly influenced enrollment as well as CCOP organizational size and structure, which had indirect effects on implementation effectiveness through IPP and implementation climate.

Conclusions

Overall, our results quantitatively confirmed the main relationship postulated in the innovation implementation framework between IPP, implementation climate, and implementation effectiveness among individual physicians. This finding is important, as although the model has been discussed within healthcare organizations before, the studies have been predominately qualitative in nature and/or at the organizational level. In addition, our findings have practical applications. Managers looking to increase implementation effectiveness of an innovation should focus on creating an environment that physicians perceive as encouraging implementation. In addition, managers should consider instituting specific organizational IPP aimed at increasing positive perceptions of implementation climate. For example, IPP should include specific expectations, support, and rewards for innovation use.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Jacobs et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]U.S. Congress: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18001. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC; 2010.
• [2]Alexander JA, Hearld LR: The science of quality improvement implementation: developing capacity to make a difference. Med Care 2011, 49:S6-S20.
• [3]Alexander JA, Weiner BJ, Shortell SM, Baker LC, Becker MP: The role of organizational infrastructure in implementation of hospitals' quality improvement. Hosp Top 2006, 84:11-20.
• [4]Berlowitz DR, Young GJ, Hickey EC, Saliba D, Mittman BS, Czarnowski E, Simon B, Anderson JJ, Ash AS, Rubenstein LV, Moskowtiz MA: Quality improvement implementation in the nursing home. Health Serv Res 2003, 38:65-83.
• [5]Nembhard IM, Alexander JA, Hoff TJ, Ramanujam R: Why does the quality of health care continue to lag? Insights from management research. Acad Manag Perspect 2009, 23:24-42.
• [6]Shortell SM, Bennett CL, Byck GR: Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement on clinical practice: what it will take to accelerate progress. Milbank Q 1998, 76:593-624.
• [7]Klein KJ, Sorra JS: The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manag Rev 1996, 21(4):1055-1080.
• [8]Weiner BJ, Belden CM, Bergmire DM, Johnston M: The meaning and measurement of implementation climate. Implement Sci 2011, 6:78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, McKinney MM, Minasian LM: Determinants of implementation effectiveness adapting a framework for complex innovation. Med Care Res Rev 2007, 64(3):279-303.
• [10]Naveh E, Marcus AA: When does the ISO 9000 quality assurance standard lead to performance improvement? Assimilation and going beyond. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2004, 51:352-363.
• [11]Weiner BJ, Haynes-Maslow L, Campbell MK, Kahwati LC, Kinsinger LS: Implementing the MOVE! weight-management program in the veterans health administration, 2007–2010: a qualitative study. Prev Chronic Dis 2012, 9:E16.
• [12]Teal R, Bergmire DM, Johnston M, Weiner BJ: Implementing community-based provider participation in research: an empirical study. Implement Sci 2012, 7:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Weiner BJ, Lewis MA, Linnan LA: Using organization theory to understand the determinants of effective implementation of worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Res 2009, 24:292-305.
• [14]Dong L, Neufeld DJ, Higgins C: Testing Klein and Sorra’s innovation implementation model: an empirical examination. J Eng Technol Manag 2008, 25(4):237-255.
• [15]Holahan PJ, Aronson ZH, Jurkat MP, Schoorman FD: Implementing computer technology: a multi-organizational test of Klein and Sorra’s model. J Eng Technol Manag 2004, 21(1):31-50.
• [16]Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS: Implementing computerized technology: an organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86(5):811-824.
• [17]Osei-Bryson KM, Dong LY, Ngwenyama O: Exploring managerial factors affecting ERP implementation: an investigation of the Klein-Sorra model using regression splines. Inf Syst J 2008, 18:499-527.
• [18]Sawang S, Unsworth KL: A model of organizational innovation implementation effectiveness in small to medium firms. Int J Innov Manag 2011, 15:989-1011.
• [19]Leiva PI, Culbertson SS, Pritchard RD: An empirical test of an innovation implemetanion model. Psychologist-Manager J 2011, 14:265-281.
• [20]Mollaoglu-Korkmaz S, Miller VD, Sun W. Assessing key dimensions to effective innovation implementation in interorganizational project teams: an Integrated Project Delivery case. Engineering Project Organization Journal 2013. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21573727.2013.855895.
• [21]Minasian LM, Carpenter WR, Weiner BJ, Anderson DE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Nelson S, Whitman C, Kelaghan J, O’Mara AM, Kaluzny AD: Translating research into evidence-based practice: the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program. Cancer 2010, 116(9):4440-4449.
• [22]Muilenburg JL, Laschober TC, Eby LT: Organizational factors as predictors of tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy adoption in addiction treatment programs. J Addict Med 2013, 0:1-7.
• [23]James LR, Jones AP: Organizational climate: a review of theory and research. Psychol Bull 1974, 81:1096-1112.
• [24]Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ: From Micro to Meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organ Res Methods 2000, 3(3):211-236.
• [25]Kaluzny AD, Lacey LM, Warnecke R, Morrissey JP, Sondik EJ, Ford L: Accrual of patients to randomized clinical trials. Factors affecting cancer prevention and control research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1994, 10(3):506-516.
• [26]Kaluzny AD, Lacey LM, Warnecke R, Hynes DM, Morrissey JP, Ford L, Sondik EJ: Predicting the performance of a strategic alliance: an analysis of the community clinical oncology program. Health Serv Res 1995, 28(2):159-182.
• [27]Jacobs SR: Multilevel Predictors of Cancer Clinical Trial Enrollment among CCOP Physicians. PhD thesis. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Health Policy & Management, Chapel Hill, NC; 2014.
• [28]Norman GR, Streiner DL (Eds). Chapter 17: Path Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. In PDQ Statistics. Third Edition. London: BC Decker Inc.; 2003: 156–177.
• [29]Hox JJ, Bechger TM: An introduction to structural equation modeling. Fam Sci Rev 2007, 11:354-373.
• [30]Schreiber JB, Stage FK, King J, Nora A, Barlow EA: Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res 2006, 99(6):323-337.
• [31]MacKinnon DP: Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, New York; 2008.
• [32]Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009, 4:50. BioMed Central Full Text