Built to last? Barriers and facilitators of healthcare program sustainability: a systematic integrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators associated with the sustainability of implemented and evaluated improvement programs in healthcare delivery systems. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Six academic databases were searched to identify relevant peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between July 2011 and June 2022. Studies were included if they reported on healthcare program sustainability and explicitly identified barriers to, and facilitators of, sustainability. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic integrative review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Study quality was appraised using Hawker's Quality Assessment Tool. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A team of reviewers screened eligible studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted the data independently using a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and mapped to the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF). Frequency counts of reported barriers/facilitators were performed across the included studies. RESULTS: Of the 124 studies included in this review, almost half utilised qualitative designs (n = 52; 41.9%) and roughly one third were conducted in the USA (n = 43; 34.7%). Few studies (n = 29; 23.4%) reported on program sustainability beyond 5 years of program implementation and only 16 of them (55.2%) defined sustainability. Factors related to the ISF categories of inner setting (n = 99; 79.8%), process (n = 99; 79.8%) and intervention characteristics (n = 72; 58.1%) were most frequently reported. Leadership/support (n = 61; 49.2%), training/support/supervision (n = 54; 43.5%) and staffing/turnover (n = 50; 40.3%) were commonly identified barriers or facilitators of sustainability across included studies. Forty-six (37.1%) studies reported on the outer setting category: funding (n = 26; 56.5%), external leadership by stakeholders (n = 16; 34.8%), and socio-political context (n = 14; 30.4%). Eight studies (6.5%) reported on discontinued programs, with factors including funding and resourcing, poor fit, limited planning, and intervention complexity contributing to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the importance of taking into consideration the inner setting, processes, intervention characteristics and outer setting factors when sustaining healthcare programs, and the need for long-term program evaluations. There is a need to apply consistent definitions and implementation frameworks across studies to strengthen evidence in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e018568 .

How can the healthcare system deliver sustainable performance? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing health costs, demand and patient multimorbidity challenge the sustainability of healthcare systems. These challenges persist and have been amplified by the global pandemic. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop an understanding of how the sustainable performance of healthcare systems (SPHS) has been conceptualised, defined and measured. DESIGN: Scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and editorials published from database inception to February 2021. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Ovid Medline, and snowballing techniques. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included articles that discussed key focus concepts of SPHS: (1) definitions, (2) measurement, (3) identified challenges, (4) identified solutions for improvement and (5) scaling successful solutions to maintain SPHS. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After title/abstract screening, full-text articles were reviewed, and relevant information extracted and synthesised under the five focus concepts. RESULTS: Of 142 included articles, 38 (27%) provided a definition of SPHS. Definitions were based mainly on financial sustainability, however, SPHS was also more broadly conceptualised and included acceptability to patients and workforce, resilience through adaptation, and rapid absorption of evidence and innovations. Measures of SPHS were also predominantly financial, but recent articles proposed composite measures that accounted for financial, social and health outcomes. Challenges to achieving SPHS included the increasingly complex patient populations, limited integration because of entrenched fragmented systems and siloed professional groups, and the ongoing translational gaps in evidence-to-practice and policy-to-practice. Improvement strategies for SPHS included developing appropriate workplace cultures, direct community and consumer involvement, and adoption of evidence-based practice and technologies. There was also a strong identified need for long-term monitoring and evaluations to support adaptation of healthcare systems and to anticipate changing needs where possible. CONCLUSIONS: To implement lasting change and to respond to new challenges, we need context-relevant definitions and frameworks, and robust, flexible, and feasible measures to support the long-term sustainability and performance of healthcare systems.

A dynamic systems view of clinical genomics: a rich picture of the landscape in Australia using a complexity science lens.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genomics represents a paradigm shifting change to health service delivery and practice across many conditions and life-stages. Introducing this complex technology into an already complex health system is a significant challenge that cannot be managed in a reductionist way. To build robust and sustainable, high quality delivery systems we need to step back and view the interconnected landscape of policymakers, funders, managers, multidisciplinary teams of clinicians, patients and their families, and health care, research, education, and philanthropic institutions as a dynamic whole. This study holistically mapped the landscape of clinical genomics within Australia by developing a complex graphic: a rich picture. Using complex systems theory, we then identified key features, challenges and leverage points of implementing clinical genomics. METHODS: We used a multi-stage, exploratory, qualitative approach. We extracted data from grey literature, empirical literature, and data collected by the Australian Genomic Health Alliance. Nine key informants working in clinical genomics critiqued early drafts of the picture, and validated the final version. RESULTS: The final graphic depicts 24 stakeholder groups relevant to implementation of genomics into Australia. Clinical genomics lies at the intersection of four nested systems, with interplay between government, professional bodies and patient advocacy groups. Barriers and uncertainties are also shown. Analysis using complexity theory showed far-reaching interdependencies around funding, and identified unintended consequences. CONCLUSION: The rich picture of the clinical genomic landscape in Australia is the first to show key stakeholders, agencies and processes and their interdependencies. Participants who critiqued our results were instantly intrigued and engaged by the graphics, searching for their place in the whole and often commenting on insights they gained from seeing the influences and impacts of other stakeholder groups on their own work. Funding patterns showed unintended consequences of increased burdens for clinicians and inequity of access for patients. Showing the system as a dynamic whole is the only way to understand key drivers and barriers to largescale interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Built to last? The sustainability of healthcare system improvements, programmes and interventions: a systematic integrative review.

INTRODUCTION: The sustainability of healthcare delivery systems is challenged by ageing populations, complex systems, increasing rates of chronic disease, increasing costs associated with new medical technologies and growing expectations by healthcare consumers. Healthcare programmes, innovations and interventions are increasingly implemented at the front lines of care to increase effectiveness and efficiency; however, little is known about how sustainability is conceptualised and measured in programme evaluations. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe theoretical frameworks, definitions and measures of sustainability, as applied in published evaluations of healthcare improvement programmes and interventions. DESIGN: Systematic integrative review. METHODS: We searched six academic databases, CINAHL, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Emerald Management, Scopus and Web of Science, for peer-reviewed English journal articles (July 2011-March 2018). Articles were included if they assessed programme sustainability or sustained outcomes of a programme at the healthcare system level. Six reviewers conducted the abstract and full-text review. Data were extracted on study characteristics, definitions, terminology, theoretical frameworks, methods and tools. Hawker's Quality Assessment Tool was applied to included studies. RESULTS: Of the 92 included studies, 75.0% were classified as high quality. Twenty-seven (29.3%) studies provided 32 different definitions of sustainability. Terms used interchangeably for sustainability included continuation, maintenance, follow-up or long term. Eighty studies (87.0%) clearly reported the timepoints at which sustainability was evaluated: 43.0% at 1-2 years and 11.3% at <12 months. Eighteen studies (19.6%) used a theoretical framework to conceptualise or assess programme sustainability, including frameworks that were not specifically designed to assess sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The body of literature is limited by the use of inconsistent definitions and measures of programme sustainability. Evaluations of service improvement programmes and interventions seldom used theoretical frameworks. Embedding implementation science and healthcare service researchers into the healthcare system is a promising strategy to improve the rigour of programme sustainability evaluations.

Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models.

OBJECTIVES: Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model. DESIGN: We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework. DATA SOURCES: All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007-2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher's achievements. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848-0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or 'altmetric' data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others. CONCLUSIONS: All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.

Systems transformation: learning from change in 60 countries.

PURPOSE: Much work about health reform and systems improvement in healthcare looks at shortcomings and universal problems facing health systems, but rarely are accomplishments dissected and analyzed internationally. The purpose of this paper is to address this knowledge gap by examining the lessons learned from health system reform and improvement efforts in 60 countries. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In total, 60 low-, middle- and high-income countries provided a case study of successful health reform, which was gathered into a compendium as a recently published book. Here, the extensive source material was re-examined through inductive content analysis to derive broad themes of systems change internationally. FINDINGS: Nine themes were identified: improving policy, coverage and governance; enhancing the quality of care; keeping patients safe; regulating standards and accreditation; organizing care at the macro-level; organizing care at the meso- and micro-level; developing workforces and resources; harnessing technology and IT; and making collaboratives and partnerships work. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These themes provide a model of what constitutes successful systems change across a wide sample of health systems, offering a store of knowledge about how reformers and improvement initiators achieve their goals. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Few comparative international studies of health systems include a sufficiently wide selection of low-, middle- and high-income countries in their analysis. This paper provides a more balanced approach to consider where achievements are being made across healthcare, and what we can do to replicate and spread successful examples of systems change internationally.

The future of health systems to 2030: a roadmap for global progress and sustainability.

Most research on health systems examines contemporary problems within one, or at most a few, countries. Breaking with this tradition, we present a series of case studies in a book written by key policymakers, scholars and experts, looking at health systems and their projected successes to 2030. Healthcare Systems: Future Predictions for Global Care includes chapters on 52 individual countries and five regions, covering a total of 152 countries. Synthesised, two key contributions are made in this compendium. First, five trends shaping the future healthcare landscape are analysed: sustainable health systems; the genomics revolution; emerging technologies; global demographics dynamics; and new models of care. Second, nine main themes arise from the chapters: integration of healthcare services; financing, economics and insurance; patient-based care and empowering the patient; universal healthcare; technology and information technology; aging populations; preventative care; accreditation, standards, and policy; and human development, education and training. These five trends and nine themes can be used as a blueprint for change. They can help strengthen the efforts of stakeholders interested in reform, ranging from international bodies such as the World Health Organization, the International Society for Quality in Health Care and the World Bank, through to national bodies such as health departments, quality and safety agencies, non-government organisations (NGO) and other groups with an interest in improving healthcare delivery systems. This compendium offers more than a glimpse into the future of healthcare-it provides a roadmap to help shape thinking about the next generation of caring systems, extrapolated over the next 15 years.

Built to last? The sustainability of health system improvements, interventions and change strategies: a study protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The sustainability of healthcare interventions and change programmes is of increasing importance to researchers and healthcare stakeholders interested in creating sustainable health systems to cope with mounting stressors. The aim of this protocol is to extend earlier work and describe a systematic review to identify, synthesise and draw meaning from studies published within the last 5 years that measure the sustainability of interventions, improvement efforts and change strategies in the health system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol outlines a method by which to execute a rigorous systematic review. The design includes applying primary and secondary data collection techniques, consisting of a comprehensive database search complemented by contact with experts, and searching secondary databases and reference lists, using snowballing techniques. The review and analysis process will occur via an abstract review followed by a full-text screening process. The inclusion criteria include English-language, peer-reviewed, primary, empirical research articles published after 2011 in scholarly journals, for which the full text is available. No restrictions on location will be applied. The review that results from this protocol will synthesise and compare characteristics of the included studies. Ultimately, it is intended that this will help make it easier to identify and design sustainable interventions, improvement efforts and change strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As no primary data were collected, ethical approval was not required. Results will be disseminated in conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and among policymaker bodies interested in creating sustainable health systems.