Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement

Implementation Science

Derek Bell¹  Jessica Saffer¹  Chris McNicholas¹  Karen Phekoo¹  Rowan Myron¹  Thomas Woodcock¹  Cathy Howe¹  Cathal Doyle¹ 

[1] NIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, 4th Floor Lift Bank D, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London SW10 9NH, UK

关键词: Implementation;    Sustainability;   

Others  :  810915
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-127

 received in 2013-03-07, accepted in 2013-09-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL).

Data from project teams’ responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as ‘engaged,’ ‘partially engaged’ and ‘non-engaged.’ Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a ‘diversity of opinion’ measure was derived to assess response variance over time.

Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as ‘engaged,’ six ‘partially engaged,’ and seven as ‘non-engaged.’ Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness.

The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams’ views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Doyle et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Department of Health: Innovation, health and wealth: accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS department of health. Department of Health; 2011.
• [2]Scheirer MA: Is sustainability possible? a review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. Am J Eval 2005, 26(3):320-347.
• [3]Stirman SW, Kimberly J, Cook N, Cook N, AC Castro F, Charns M: The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implement Sci 2012., 7(17)
• [4]Ham C, Kipping R, McLeod H: Redesigning work processes in health care: lessons from the national health service. Milbank Q 2003, 81(3):415-439.
• [5]Maher L, Gustafson D, Evans A: NHS Sustainability Model. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement; 2010. http://www.institute.nhs.uk/sustainability webcite
• [6]Pluye P, Potvin L, Denis J-L: Making public health programs last: conceptualizing sustainability. Eval Program Plann 2004, 27(2):121-133.
• [7]Levitt B, March J: Organizational learning. Annu Rev Sociol 1988, 14:319-340.
• [8]Scheirer MA, Dearing JW: An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. Am J Public Health 2011, 101(11):2059-2067.
• [9]Langley G, Nolan K, Nolan T, Norman C: L. P. The Improvement Guide: a practical approach to enhancing organisational performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers; 1996.
• [10]Garside P, Garside P: Organisational context for quality: lessons from the fields of organisational development and change management. Qual Health Care 1998, 7:58-515.
• [11]Ford JH II, Krahn D, Wise M, Oliver KA: Measuring sustainability within the veterans administration mental health system redesign initiative. Quality Management in Healthcare 2011, 20(4):263-279.
• [12]Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, Marshall MN: Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. BMJ 2003, 326(7393):816-819.
• [13]Shediac-Rizkallah MC, Bone LR: Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Educ Res 1998, 13(1):87-108.
• [14]Edwards JC, Feldman PH, Sangl J, Polakoff D, Stern G, Casey D: Sustainability of partnership projects: a conceptual framework and checklist. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2007, 33(12):37-47.
• [15]Sadof MD, Boschert KA, Brandt SJ, Motyl AP: An analysis of predictors of sustainability efforts at the Inner-City Asthma intervention sites: after the funding is gone. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006, 97(1):S31-S35.
• [16]Smith R: Cuts being made to frontline NHS services survey reveals. London: The Daily Telegraph; 2010.
• [17]Washington University in St Louis: The Program Sustainability Assessment Tool. St Louis, MO: Washington University; 2012.