A framework for scaling up health interventions: lessons from large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Scaling up complex health interventions to large populations is not a straightforward task. Without intentional, guided efforts to scale up, it can take many years for a new evidence-based intervention to be broadly implemented. For the past decade, researchers and implementers have developed models of scale-up that move beyond earlier paradigms that assumed ideas and practices would successfully spread through a combination of publication, policy, training, and example. Drawing from the previously reported frameworks for scaling up health interventions and our experience in the USA and abroad, we describe a framework for taking health interventions to full scale, and we use two large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa to illustrate the framework in action. We first identified other scale-up approaches for comparison and analysis of common constructs by searching for systematic reviews of scale-up in health care, reviewing those bibliographies, speaking with experts, and reviewing common research databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) for papers in English from peer-reviewed and "gray" sources that discussed models, frameworks, or theories for scale-up from 2000 to 2014. We then analyzed the results of this external review in the context of the models and frameworks developed over the past 20 years by Associates in Process Improvement (API) and the Institute for Healthcare improvement (IHI). Finally, we reflected on two national-scale improvement initiatives that IHI had undertaken in Ghana and South Africa that were testing grounds for early iterations of the framework presented in this paper. RESULTS: The framework describes three core components: a sequence of activities that are required to get a program of work to full scale, the mechanisms that are required to facilitate the adoption of interventions, and the underlying factors and support systems required for successful scale-up. The four steps in the sequence include (1) Set-up, which prepares the ground for introduction and testing of the intervention that will be taken to full scale; (2) Develop the Scalable Unit, which is an early testing phase; (3) Test of Scale-up, which then tests the intervention in a variety of settings that are likely to represent different contexts that will be encountered at full scale; and (4) Go to Full Scale, which unfolds rapidly to enable a larger number of sites or divisions to adopt and/or replicate the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework echoes, amplifies, and systematizes the three dominant themes that occur to varying extents in a number of existing scale-up frameworks. We call out the crucial importance of defining a scalable unit of organization. If a scalable unit can be defined, and successful results achieved by implementing an intervention in this unit without major addition of resources, it is more likely that the intervention can be fully and rapidly scaled. When tying this framework to quality improvement (QI) methods, we describe a range of methodological options that can be applied to each of the four steps in the framework's sequence.

A stakeholder-driven agenda for advancing the science and practice of scale-up and spread in health.

BACKGROUND: Although significant advances have been made in implementation science, comparatively less attention has been paid to broader scale-up and spread of effective health programs at the regional, national, or international level. To address this gap in research, practice and policy attention, representatives from key stakeholder groups launched an initiative to identify gaps and stimulate additional interest and activity in scale-up and spread of effective health programs. We describe the background and motivation for this initiative and the content, process, and outcomes of two main phases comprising the core of the initiative: a state-of-the-art conference to develop recommendations for advancing scale-up and spread and a follow-up activity to operationalize and prioritize the recommendations. The conference was held in Washington, D.C. during July 2010 and attended by 100 representatives from research, practice, policy, public health, healthcare, and international health communities; the follow-up activity was conducted remotely the following year. DISCUSSION: Conference attendees identified and prioritized five recommendations (and corresponding sub-recommendations) for advancing scale-up and spread in health: increase awareness, facilitate information exchange, develop new methods, apply new approaches for evaluation, and expand capacity. In the follow-up activity, 'develop new methods' was rated as most important recommendation; expanding capacity was rated as least important, although differences were relatively minor. SUMMARY: Based on the results of these efforts, we discuss priority activities that are needed to advance research, practice and policy to accelerate the scale-up and spread of effective health programs.

US organ donation breakthrough collaborative increases organ donation.

More than 92000 Americans are on waiting lists for organ transplants, and an average of 17 of them die each day while waiting. The US Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative (ODBC), which began in 2003 at the request of the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, was a formal, concerted effort of the donation and transplantation community to bring about a major change to improve the organ donation system. The nationwide Collaborative was housed within a Health and Human Services agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Division of Transplantation, and included participation of the organ procurement organizations (OPOs) throughout the United States and the American hospitals with the largest organ-donor potential. HRSA leaders used the Breakthrough Series Collaborative method, originally developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, as the model for the intervention. Expert practitioners drawn from hospitals and OPOs that had already demonstrated their ability to achieve and sustain high organ donation rates were chosen as faculty for the collaborative and best practices were gleaned from their institutions. The number of organ donors in Collaborative hospitals increased 14.1% in the first year, a 70% greater increase than the 8.3% increase experienced by non-Collaborative hospitals. Moreover, the increased organ recovery continued into the post-Collaborative periods. Between October 2003 and September 2006, the number of total US organ donors increased 22.5%, an increase 4-fold greater than the 5.5% increase measured over the same number of years in the immediate pre-Collaborative period. The study did not involve a randomized design, but time-series analysis using statistical process control charts shows a highly significant discontinuity in the rate of increase in participating hospitals concurrent with the Collaborative program, and strongly suggests that the activities of the Collaborative were a major contributor to this increase. Given the stable nature of the historical increases over many years, the HRSA estimates that more than 4000 annual additional transplants have occurred in association and apparently as a result of these increases in organ donation.

Using a framework for spread: The case of patient access in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Experience indicates that an effective operational system will spread much more slowly than, for example, a new antinausea drug. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) used a Framework for Spread to spread improvements in access to more than 1800 outpatient clinics between April 2001 and December 2003. The framework identifies strategies and methods for planning and guiding the spread of new ideas or new operational systems, including the responsibilities of leadership, packaging the new ideas, communication, strengthening the social system, measurement and feedback, and knowledge management. APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK FOR SPREAD: Following a collaborative for reducing waiting times for patients without the large-scale addition of resources, each of the participating 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) used the framework to expand improvements in access to care to six additional targeted clinics (for example, primary care, eye care, cardiology). RESULTS: During the VHAs spread initiative, waiting time for a primary care appointment decreased from 60.4 days at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2000 to 28.4 at the end of FY 2002. Results were sustained. Waiting time was <25 days at the end of FY 2004. DISCUSSION: The Framework for Spread suggests areas that organizations should consider when developing and executing a strategy for a spread initiative. Further study is needed to determine the specific activities that should be emphasized to accelerate spread.

Improving patient access to the Veterans Health Administration's primary care and specialty clinics.

BACKGROUND: During the past four years the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been engaged in a national effort to improve access for patients to its 1,826 primary care, audiology, cardiology, eye care, orthopedics, and urology clinics by using the principles of open access or "advanced clinic access." The strategy entailed the development of successful cases to demonstrate the methods of advanced clinic access and provide evidence of its benefits for providers as well as patients in primary care and specialty clinics. RESULTS: Four clinics--one primary care clinic and three specialty care clinics--showed dramatic improvement in waiting times for appointments (reductions range from 20 days in urology to 78 days in primary care). DISCUSSION: Beyond the four case studies, hundreds of other clinics in the VHA are also applying advanced clinic access principles in their work. The diversity across the VHA suggests that the principles of advanced clinic access are robust across settings and types of clinics. However, the experience of other organizations with different structures and patient populations needs to be reported to fully demonstrate the generalizability of these results. Many of the changes were put in place during the project's final 18 months. Additional data will be needed to demonstrate sustained improvement.

Quality improvement for pressure ulcer care in the nursing home setting: the Northeast Pressure Ulcer Project.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of a collaborative model of quality improvement in nursing homes on processes of care for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. STUDY DESIGN: The study design was experimental. SETTING: We studied 29 nursing homes in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. PARTICIPANTS: Participants consisted of pressure ulcer quality improvement teams in 29 nursing homes. INTERVENTION: Quality improvement teams attended a series of workshops to review clinical guidelines and quality improvement principles and to share best practices, and worked one-on-one with mentors to implement quality improvement techniques and to collect data independently. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated process measures based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guidelines. Process measures addressed each facility's processes of care for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers at baseline and after 12 months of intervention. Prevention measures focused on recent admissions and high-risk residents; treatment measures focused on patients newly diagnosed with pressure ulcers and all patients with pressure ulcers. RESULTS: Overall, 6 of 8 prevention process measures improved significantly, with percent difference between baseline and follow up ranging from 11.6% to 24.5%. Three of 4 treatment process measures improved significantly, with 5.0%, 8.9%, and 25.9% difference between baseline and follow up. For each process measure, between 5 and 12 facilities demonstrated significant improvement between baseline and follow up, and only 2 or fewer declined for each process measure. CONCLUSION: Improvement in processes of care after the use of a structured collaborative quality improvement approach is possible in the nursing home setting.