Barriers and facilitators to high-volume evidence-based innovation and implementation in a large, community-based learning health system.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Cimone Durojaiye, Stephanie Prausnitz, Jennifer L Schneider, Tracy A Lieu, Julie A Schmittdiel, Smita Rouillard, Yi-Fen Chen, Kristine Lee, Douglas A Corley
{"title":"Barriers and facilitators to high-volume evidence-based innovation and implementation in a large, community-based learning health system.","authors":"Cimone Durojaiye, Stephanie Prausnitz, Jennifer L Schneider, Tracy A Lieu, Julie A Schmittdiel, Smita Rouillard, Yi-Fen Chen, Kristine Lee, Douglas A Corley","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11803-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Broad-scale, rapid health care change is critically needed to improve value-based, effective health care. Health care providers and systems need to address common barriers and facilitators across the evidence to implementation pathway, across diverse specialties. However, most evidence translation / implementation research evaluates single topic areas, and may be of limited value for informing comprehensive efforts. This project's objective was to identify, characterize, and illustrate common trans-topic facilitators and barriers of translating new health care evidence results to clinical implementation across multiple medical specialties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was an evaluation of all evidence-based innovation projects completed during 2019-2021. Each project was created with medical group clinical leaders and was intended to inform clinical care. The evaluation took place in a large community-based integrated health care system, and an embedded delivery science and applied research program. Clinical investigators, scientific investigators, and clinical operational leaders received structured questionnaires regarding barriers and facilitators for the operational implementation of new research findings for each project. Responses were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify perceived implementation barriers and facilitators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 48 projects completed between 2019 and 2021 were evaluated; responses were received for 45 (94%) and 34 had comments mappable to framework domains. Potential barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation of new research results were identified across all five framework domains and, within these, the 38 constructs or sub-constructs. Among 245 total comments, the most commonly cited facilitators were how the new research evidence generated, compelled change (n = 29), specialty communication networks for disseminating results and initiating change (n = 20), leadership engagement in the project (n = 19), and the innovation's relative advantage over existing practices (n = 11). The most commonly cited barriers were inadequate resource commitment for next-step implementation (n = 15), insufficient learning/implementation culture (n = 5), and insufficient individual-level willingness/ability for change (n = 5).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A novel large-scale evaluation of barriers and facilitators across the evidence to implementation pathway identified common factors across multiple topic areas and specialties. These common potentially replicable facilitators and modifiable barriers can focus health systems and leaders pursuing large-volume evidence-to-implementation initiatives on those areas with the likely greatest benefit-for-effort, for accelerating health care change.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1446"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11580646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11803-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Broad-scale, rapid health care change is critically needed to improve value-based, effective health care. Health care providers and systems need to address common barriers and facilitators across the evidence to implementation pathway, across diverse specialties. However, most evidence translation / implementation research evaluates single topic areas, and may be of limited value for informing comprehensive efforts. This project's objective was to identify, characterize, and illustrate common trans-topic facilitators and barriers of translating new health care evidence results to clinical implementation across multiple medical specialties.

Methods: This study was an evaluation of all evidence-based innovation projects completed during 2019-2021. Each project was created with medical group clinical leaders and was intended to inform clinical care. The evaluation took place in a large community-based integrated health care system, and an embedded delivery science and applied research program. Clinical investigators, scientific investigators, and clinical operational leaders received structured questionnaires regarding barriers and facilitators for the operational implementation of new research findings for each project. Responses were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify perceived implementation barriers and facilitators.

Results: All 48 projects completed between 2019 and 2021 were evaluated; responses were received for 45 (94%) and 34 had comments mappable to framework domains. Potential barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation of new research results were identified across all five framework domains and, within these, the 38 constructs or sub-constructs. Among 245 total comments, the most commonly cited facilitators were how the new research evidence generated, compelled change (n = 29), specialty communication networks for disseminating results and initiating change (n = 20), leadership engagement in the project (n = 19), and the innovation's relative advantage over existing practices (n = 11). The most commonly cited barriers were inadequate resource commitment for next-step implementation (n = 15), insufficient learning/implementation culture (n = 5), and insufficient individual-level willingness/ability for change (n = 5).

Conclusions: A novel large-scale evaluation of barriers and facilitators across the evidence to implementation pathway identified common factors across multiple topic areas and specialties. These common potentially replicable facilitators and modifiable barriers can focus health systems and leaders pursuing large-volume evidence-to-implementation initiatives on those areas with the likely greatest benefit-for-effort, for accelerating health care change.

在一个以社区为基础的大型学习型医疗系统中,大批量循证创新和实施的障碍和促进因素。
背景:要改善以价值为基础的有效医疗保健,亟需进行大规模、快速的医疗保健变革。医疗服务提供者和系统需要解决从证据到实施的整个过程中,不同专业之间的共同障碍和促进因素。然而,大多数证据转化/实施研究都是对单一主题领域进行评估,对于为全面工作提供信息的价值可能有限。本项目的目标是识别、描述和说明多个医学专业在将新的医疗证据成果转化为临床实施过程中常见的跨主题促进因素和障碍:本研究对 2019-2021 年期间完成的所有循证创新项目进行了评估。每个项目都是与医疗集团临床负责人共同创建的,旨在为临床护理提供信息。评估在一个大型社区综合医疗保健系统中进行,并嵌入了交付科学和应用研究计划。临床研究人员、科学研究人员和临床操作负责人收到了结构化问卷,内容涉及每个项目在操作中实施新研究成果的障碍和促进因素。问卷调查结果与实施研究综合框架相匹配,以确定实施障碍和促进因素:对 2019 年至 2021 年期间完成的所有 48 个项目进行了评估;共收到 45 个项目(94%)的回复,其中 34 个项目的意见可与框架领域相对应。在所有五个框架领域以及其中的 38 个结构或子结构中,确定了临床实施新研究成果的潜在障碍和促进因素。在总共 245 条评论中,最常提到的促进因素是新研究证据如何产生、如何迫使变革(29 条)、传播成果和发起变革的专业交流网络(20 条)、领导层对项目的参与(19 条)以及创新相对于现有实践的优势(11 条)。最常提到的障碍是下一步实施的资源承诺不足(15 人)、学习/实施文化不足(5 人)以及个人层面的变革意愿/能力不足(5 人):通过对从证据到实施的整个过程中的障碍和促进因素进行大规模评估,发现了多个主题领域和专业的共同因素。这些具有潜在可复制性的共同促进因素和可改变的障碍,可以使医疗系统和领导者将大量的 "从证据到实施 "倡议集中在那些可能具有最大效益的领域,以加速医疗变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信