28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multi-level factors influence the implementation and use of complex innovations in cancer care: a multiple case study of synoptic reporting

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The implementation of innovations ( i.e., new tools and practices) in healthcare organizations remains a significant challenge. The objective of this study was to examine the key interpersonal, organizational, and system level factors that influenced the implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools in three specific areas of cancer care.

          Methods

          Using case study methodology, we studied three cases in Nova Scotia, Canada, wherein synoptic reporting tools were implemented within clinical departments/programs. Synoptic reporting tools capture and present information about a medical or surgical procedure in a structured, checklist-like format and typically report only items critical for understanding the disease and subsequent impacts on patient care. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key informants, document analysis, nonparticipant observation, and tool use/examination. Analysis involved production of case histories, in-depth analysis of each case, and a cross-case analysis. Numerous techniques were used during the research design, data collection, and data analysis stages to increase the rigour of this study.

          Results

          The analysis revealed five common factors that were particularly influential to implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools across the three cases: stakeholder involvement, managing the change process ( e.g., building demand, communication, training and support), champions and respected colleagues, administrative and managerial support, and innovation attributes ( e.g., complexity, compatibility with interests and values). The direction of influence (facilitating or impeding) of each of these factors differed across and within cases.

          Conclusions

          The findings demonstrate the importance of a multi-level contextual analysis to gaining both breadth and depth to our understanding of innovation implementation and use in health care. They also provide new insights into several important issues under-reported in the literature on moving innovations into healthcare practice, including the role of middle managers in implementation efforts and the importance of attending to the interpersonal aspects of implementation.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0121-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges

          Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research

            (2013)
            This article examines five common misunderstandings about case-study research: (1) Theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (2) One cannot generalize from a single case, therefore the single case study cannot contribute to scientific development; (3) The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, while other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building; (4) The case study contains a bias toward verification; and (5) It is often difficult to summarize specific case studies. The article explains and corrects these misunderstandings one by one and concludes with the Kuhnian insight that a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and that a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. Social science may be strengthened by the execution of more good case studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Case study research: design and methods

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                urquhartr@cdha.nshealth.ca
                geoff.porter@dal.ca
                joan.sargeant@dal.ca
                lois.jackson@dal.ca
                eva.grunfeld@utoronto.ca
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                16 September 2014
                16 September 2014
                2014
                : 9
                : 1
                : 121
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
                [ ]Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Dalhousie University/Capital Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
                [ ]Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
                [ ]Division of Medical Education, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
                [ ]Continuing Professional Development, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
                [ ]School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
                [ ]Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
                [ ]Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario Canada
                [ ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada
                Article
                121
                10.1186/s13012-014-0121-0
                4173056
                25224952
                71d59892-4f45-45b1-9824-510355254461
                © Urquhart et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 17 December 2013
                : 28 August 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Medicine
                synoptic reporting,knowledge translation,implementation,cancer,innovation
                Medicine
                synoptic reporting, knowledge translation, implementation, cancer, innovation

                Comments

                Comment on this article