Applying the major system change framework to evaluate implementation of rapid healthcare system change: a case study of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services.

Holly Walton, Nadia Crellin, Ian Litchfield, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Theo Georghiou, Efthalia Massou, Manbinder Sidhu, Sonila M Tomini, Lauren Herlitz, Jo Ellins, Pei Li Ng, Naomi J Fulop
{"title":"Applying the major system change framework to evaluate implementation of rapid healthcare system change: a case study of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services.","authors":"Holly Walton, Nadia Crellin, Ian Litchfield, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Theo Georghiou, Efthalia Massou, Manbinder Sidhu, Sonila M Tomini, Lauren Herlitz, Jo Ellins, Pei Li Ng, Naomi J Fulop","doi":"10.1186/s43058-025-00707-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A framework to evaluate implementation of Major System Change (MSC) in healthcare has been developed and applied to implementation of longer-term system changes. This was the first study to apply the five domains of the MSC framework to rapid healthcare system change. We aimed to: i) evaluate implementation of rapid MSC, using England COVID-19 remote home monitoring services as a case study and ii) consider whether and how the MSC framework can be applied to rapid MSC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods rapid evaluation in England, across 28 primary and secondary healthcare sites (October 2020-November 2021; data collection: 4 months). We conducted 126 interviews (5 national leads, 59 staff, 62 patients/carers) and surveyed staff (n = 292) and patients/carers (n = 1069). Service providers completed cost surveys. Aggregated and patient-level national datasets were used to explore enrolment, service use and clinical outcomes. The MSC framework was applied retrospectively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically to explore key themes within each MSC framework domain. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were used to analyse experience, costs, service use and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Decision to change/Decision on model: Service development happened concurrently: i) early local development motivated by urgent clinical need, ii) national rollout using standard operating procedures, and iii) local implementation and adaptation. Implementation approach: Services were tailored to local needs to consider patient, staff, organisational and resource factors. Implementation outcomes: Patient enrolment was low (59% services <10%). Service models and implementation approaches varied substantially. Intervention outcomes: No associations found between services and clinical outcomes. Patient and staff experiences were generally positive. However, barriers to delivery and engagement were found; with some groups finding it harder to engage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Low enrolment rates and substantial variation due to tailoring services to local contexts meant it was not possible to conclusively determine service effectiveness. Process outcomes indicated areas of improvement. The MSC framework can be used to analyse rapid MSC. Implementation and factors influencing implementation may differ to non-rapid contexts (e.g. less uniformity, more tailoring). Our mixed-methods approach could inform future evaluations of large-scale rapid and non-rapid MSC in a range of conditions and services internationally.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"6 1","pages":"24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877748/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00707-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A framework to evaluate implementation of Major System Change (MSC) in healthcare has been developed and applied to implementation of longer-term system changes. This was the first study to apply the five domains of the MSC framework to rapid healthcare system change. We aimed to: i) evaluate implementation of rapid MSC, using England COVID-19 remote home monitoring services as a case study and ii) consider whether and how the MSC framework can be applied to rapid MSC.

Methods: A mixed-methods rapid evaluation in England, across 28 primary and secondary healthcare sites (October 2020-November 2021; data collection: 4 months). We conducted 126 interviews (5 national leads, 59 staff, 62 patients/carers) and surveyed staff (n = 292) and patients/carers (n = 1069). Service providers completed cost surveys. Aggregated and patient-level national datasets were used to explore enrolment, service use and clinical outcomes. The MSC framework was applied retrospectively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically to explore key themes within each MSC framework domain. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were used to analyse experience, costs, service use and clinical outcomes.

Results: Decision to change/Decision on model: Service development happened concurrently: i) early local development motivated by urgent clinical need, ii) national rollout using standard operating procedures, and iii) local implementation and adaptation. Implementation approach: Services were tailored to local needs to consider patient, staff, organisational and resource factors. Implementation outcomes: Patient enrolment was low (59% services <10%). Service models and implementation approaches varied substantially. Intervention outcomes: No associations found between services and clinical outcomes. Patient and staff experiences were generally positive. However, barriers to delivery and engagement were found; with some groups finding it harder to engage.

Conclusions: Low enrolment rates and substantial variation due to tailoring services to local contexts meant it was not possible to conclusively determine service effectiveness. Process outcomes indicated areas of improvement. The MSC framework can be used to analyse rapid MSC. Implementation and factors influencing implementation may differ to non-rapid contexts (e.g. less uniformity, more tailoring). Our mixed-methods approach could inform future evaluations of large-scale rapid and non-rapid MSC in a range of conditions and services internationally.

应用主要系统变更框架评估快速医疗保健系统变更的实施:以COVID-19远程家庭监测服务为例
背景:一个框架来评估实施的主要系统变化(MSC)在医疗保健已经开发和应用于实施长期的系统变化。这是第一个将MSC框架的五个领域应用于快速医疗保健系统变化的研究。我们的目标是:i)评估快速MSC的实施情况,以英格兰COVID-19远程家庭监测服务为案例研究;ii)考虑MSC框架是否以及如何应用于快速MSC。方法:在英格兰28个初级和二级医疗站点进行混合方法快速评估(2020年10月- 2021年11月;数据收集:4个月)。我们进行了126次访谈(5名国家领导、59名工作人员、62名患者/护理人员),并对工作人员(n = 292)和患者/护理人员(n = 1069)进行了调查。服务提供商完成了成本调查。汇总和患者水平的国家数据集用于探索注册,服务使用和临床结果。回顾性应用MSC框架。定性数据按主题进行分析,以探索每个MSC框架域中的关键主题。使用描述性统计和多变量分析来分析经验、成本、服务使用和临床结果。结果:改变的决定/模式的决定:服务开发同时发生:i)迫切临床需求驱动的早期地方开发,ii)使用标准操作程序的全国推广,以及iii)地方实施和适应。实施方法:根据当地需要,考虑病人、员工、组织和资源等因素,提供量身定制的服务。实施结果:患者入组率低(59%)。结论:低入组率和根据当地情况量身定制服务的巨大差异意味着不可能最终确定服务有效性。过程结果表明需要改进的领域。MSC框架可用于分析快速MSC。实施和影响实施的因素可能与非快速环境有所不同(例如,一致性较差,更具剪裁性)。我们的混合方法可以为未来国际上各种条件和服务下大规模快速和非快速MSC的评估提供信息。
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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信