Leadership for evidence-based practice: strategic and functional behaviors for institutionalizing EBP.

BACKGROUND: Making evidence-based practice (EBP) a reality throughout an organization is a challenging goal in healthcare services. Leadership has been recognized as a critical element in that process. However, little is known about the exact role and function of various levels of leadership in the successful institutionalization of EBP within an organization. AIMS: To uncover what leaders at different levels and in different roles actually do, and what actions they take to develop, enhance, and sustain EBP as the norm. METHODS: Qualitative data from a case study regarding institutionalization of EBP in two contrasting cases (Role Model and Beginner hospitals) were systematically analyzed. Data were obtained from multiple interviews of leaders, both formal and informal, and from staff nurse focus groups. A deductive coding schema, based on concepts of functional leadership, was developed for this in-depth analysis. RESULTS: Participants' descriptions reflected a hierarchical array of strategic, functional, and cross-cutting behaviors. Within these macrolevel "themes," 10 behavioral midlevel themes were identified; for example, Intervening and Role modeling. Each theme is distinctive, yet various themes and their subthemes were interrelated and synergistic. These behaviors and their interrelationships were conceptualized in the framework "Leadership Behaviors Supportive of EBP Institutionalization" (L-EBP). Leaders at multiple levels in the Role Model case, both formal and informal, engaged in most of these behaviors. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Supportive leadership behaviors required for organizational institutionalization of EBP reflect a complex set of interactive, multifaceted EBP-focused actions carried out by leaders from the chief nursing officer to staff nurses. A related framework such as L-EBP may provide concrete guidance needed to underpin the often-noted but abstract finding that leaders should "support" EBP.

An implementation-focused process evaluation of an incentive intervention effectiveness trial in substance use disorders clinics at two Veterans Health Administration medical centers.

BACKGROUND: One of the pressing concerns in health care today is the slow rate at which promising interventions, supported by research evidence, move into clinical practice. One potential way to speed this process is to conduct hybrid studies that simultaneously combine the collection of effectiveness and implementation relevant data. This paper presents implementation relevant data collected during a randomized effectiveness trial of an abstinence incentive intervention conducted in substance use disorders treatment clinics at two Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. METHODS: Participants included patients entering substance use disorders treatment with diagnoses of alcohol dependence and/or stimulant dependence that enrolled in the randomized trial, were assigned to the intervention arm, and completed a post intervention survey (n = 147). All staff and leadership from the participating clinics were eligible to participate. A descriptive process evaluation was used, focused on participant perceptions and contextual/feasibility issues. Data collection was guided by the RE-AIM and PARIHS implementation frameworks. Data collection methods included chart review, intervention cost tracking, patient and staff surveys, and qualitative interviews with staff and administrators. RESULTS: Results indicated that patients, staff and administrators held generally positive attitudes toward the incentive intervention. However, staff and administrators identified substantial barriers to routine implementation. Despite the documented low cost and modest staff time required for implementation of the intervention, securing funding for the incentives and freeing up any staff time for intervention administration were identified as primary barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations to facilitate implementation are presented. Recommendations include: 1) solicit explicit support from the highest levels of the organization through, for example, performance measures or clinical practice guideline recommendations; 2) adopt the intervention incrementally starting within a specific treatment track or clinic to reduce staff and funding burden until local evidence of effectiveness and feasibility is available to support spread; and 3) educate staff about the process, goals, and value/effectiveness of the intervention and engage them in implementation planning from the start to enhance investment in the intervention.

Use of implementation theory: a focus on PARIHS.

BACKGROUND: Limited understanding and application of theory in implementation research contributes to variable effectiveness of implementation studies. Better understanding of direct experiences with theory could improve implementation research and the potency of interventions. AIMS: This study was a conceptual exercise aimed at characterizing experiences with and applications of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. METHODS: This was a structured, qualitative study involving document reviews and interviews used to answer the following overarching questions about nine implementation research centers: Why and how was PARIHS used? What strengths and weaknesses were identified for PARIHS? FINDINGS: PARIHS was being used for varied purposes, at varied levels, in varied ways, and to a varying extent within and across centers. Lack of implementation theory use in investigators' early years was common. Variability in the nature of theory use was attributable to characteristics of the centers, individual investigators, and features of PARIHS. Strengths and weaknesses of the PARIHS framework were identified. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The study provides information to researchers and theorists about the use of one well-known implementation framework. The information suggests areas for improvements in PARIHS as well as theory use in general, and should assist in the development of theory-based programs of research.

Rewarding early abstinence in Veterans Health Administration addiction clinics.

This study investigates the addition of a contingency management (CM) intervention to Veterans Health Administration substance use disorders treatment on during- and post-treatment outcomes for Veterans diagnosed with alcohol dependence only (n=191) or stimulant dependence (n=139). Participants were randomly assigned to 8weeks of usual care or usual care plus CM. Follow-up assessments occurred at 2, 6 and 12months. In the alcohol dependent subgroup, CM participants submitted significantly more negative samples (13 versus 11 samples, Cohen's d=0.54), were retained significantly longer (7 versus 6weeks, d=0.47), achieved significantly longer median durations of abstinence (16 versus 9 consecutive visits; median difference=7, 95% CI=4-8), and submitted significantly more negative samples at follow-ups (unstandardized effect size=0.669, se=0.2483) compared to usual care participants. Intervention effects were non-significant for the stimulant dependent subgroup. The study provides support for the effectiveness of CM interventions for alcohol dependent patients.

Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research.

BACKGROUND: Realist synthesis is an increasingly popular approach to the review and synthesis of evidence, which focuses on understanding the mechanisms by which an intervention works (or not). There are few published examples of realist synthesis. This paper therefore fills a gap by describing, in detail, the process used for a realist review and synthesis to answer the question 'what interventions and strategies are effective in enabling evidence-informed healthcare?' The strengths and challenges of conducting realist review are also considered. METHODS: The realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how they work under what conditions. The stages of this review included: defining the scope of the review (concept mining and framework formulation); searching for and scrutinising the evidence; extracting and synthesising the evidence; and developing the narrative, including hypotheses. RESULTS: Based on key terms and concepts related to various interventions to promote evidence-informed healthcare, we developed an outcome-focused theoretical framework. Questions were tailored for each of four theory/intervention areas within the theoretical framework and were used to guide development of a review and data extraction process. The search for literature within our first theory area, change agency, was executed and the screening procedure resulted in inclusion of 52 papers. Using the questions relevant to this theory area, data were extracted by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Synthesis involved organisation of extracted data into evidence tables, theming and formulation of chains of inference, linking between the chains of inference, and hypothesis formulation. The narrative was developed around the hypotheses generated within the change agency theory area. CONCLUSIONS: Realist synthesis lends itself to the review of complex interventions because it accounts for context as well as outcomes in the process of systematically and transparently synthesising relevant literature. While realist synthesis demands flexible thinking and the ability to deal with complexity, the rewards include the potential for more pragmatic conclusions than alternative approaches to systematic reviewing. A separate publication will report the findings of the review.

A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation.

BACKGROUND: Based on a critical synthesis of literature on use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, revisions and a companion Guide were developed by a group of researchers independent of the original PARIHS team. The purpose of the Guide is to enhance and optimize efforts of researchers using PARIHS in implementation trials and evaluations. METHODS: Authors used a planned, structured process to organize and synthesize critiques, discussions, and potential recommendations for refinements of the PARIHS framework arising from a systematic review. Using a templated form, each author independently recorded key components for each reviewed paper; that is, study definitions, perceived strengths/limitations of PARIHS, other observations regarding key issues and recommendations regarding needed refinements. After reaching consensus on these key components, the authors summarized the information and developed the Guide. RESULTS: A number of revisions, perceived as consistent with the PARIHS framework's general nature and intent, are proposed. The related Guide is composed of a set of reference tools, provided in Additional files. Its core content is built upon the basic elements of PARIHS and current implementation science. CONCLUSIONS: We invite researchers using PARIHS for targeted evidence-based practice (EBP) implementations with a strong task-orientation to use this Guide as a companion and to apply the revised framework prospectively and comprehensively. Researchers also are encouraged to evaluate its use relative to perceived strengths and issues. Such evaluations and critical reflections regarding PARIHS and our Guide could thereby promote the framework's continued evolution.

A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework.

BACKGROUND: The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, or PARIHS, is a conceptual framework that posits key, interacting elements that influence successful implementation of evidence-based practices. It has been widely cited and used as the basis for empirical work; however, there has not yet been a literature review to examine how the framework has been used in implementation projects and research. The purpose of the present article was to critically review and synthesize the literature on PARIHS to understand how it has been used and operationalized, and to highlight its strengths and limitations. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative, critical synthesis of peer-reviewed PARIHS literature published through March 2009. We synthesized findings through a three-step process using semi-structured data abstraction tools and group consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles met our inclusion criteria: six core concept articles from original PARIHS authors, and eighteen empirical articles ranging from case reports to quantitative studies. Empirical articles generally used PARIHS as an organizing framework for analyses. No studies used PARIHS prospectively to design implementation strategies, and there was generally a lack of detail about how variables were measured or mapped, or how conclusions were derived. Several studies used findings to comment on the framework in ways that could help refine or validate it. The primary issue identified with the framework was a need for greater conceptual clarity regarding the definition of sub-elements and the nature of dynamic relationships. Strengths identified included its flexibility, intuitive appeal, explicit acknowledgement of the outcome of 'successful implementation,' and a more expansive view of what can and should constitute 'evidence.' CONCLUSIONS: While we found studies reporting empirical support for PARIHS, the single greatest need for this and other implementation models is rigorous, prospective use of the framework to guide implementation projects. There is also need to better explain derived findings and how interventions or measures are mapped to specific PARIHS elements; greater conceptual discrimination among sub-elements may be necessary first. In general, it may be time for the implementation science community to develop consensus guidelines for reporting the use and usefulness of theoretical frameworks within implementation studies.

Institutionalizing evidence-based practice: an organizational case study using a model of strategic change.

BACKGROUND: There is a general expectation within healthcare that organizations should use evidence-based practice (EBP) as an approach to improving the quality of care. However, challenges exist regarding how to make EBP a reality, particularly at an organizational level and as a routine, sustained aspect of professional practice. METHODS: A mixed method explanatory case study was conducted to study context; i.e., in terms of the presence or absence of multiple, inter-related contextual elements and associated strategic approaches required for integrated, routine use of EBP ('institutionalization'). The Pettigrew et al. Content, Context, and Process model was used as the theoretical framework. Two sites in the US were purposively sampled to provide contrasting cases: i.e., a 'role model' site, widely recognized as demonstrating capacity to successfully implement and sustain EBP to a greater degree than others; and a 'beginner' site, self-perceived as early in the journey towards institutionalization. RESULTS: The two sites were clearly different in terms of their organizational context, level of EBP activity, and degree of institutionalization. For example, the role model site had a pervasive, integrated presence of EBP versus a sporadic, isolated presence in the beginner site. Within the inner context of the role model site, there was also a combination of the Pettigrew and colleagues' receptive elements that, together, appeared to enhance its ability to effectively implement EBP-related change at multiple levels. In contrast, the beginner site, which had been involved for a few years in EBP-related efforts, had primarily non-receptive conditions in several contextual elements and a fairly low overall level of EBP receptivity. The beginner site thus appeared, at the time of data collection, to lack an integrated context to either support or facilitate the institutionalization of EBP. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence of some of the key contextual elements that may require attention if institutionalization of EBP is to be realized. They also suggest the need for an integrated set of receptive contextual elements to achieve EBP institutionalization; and they further support the importance of specific interactions among these elements, including ways in which leadership affects other contextual elements positively or negatively.

An organizational framework and strategic implementation for system-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI Series.

BACKGROUND: The continuing gap between available evidence and current practice in health care reinforces the need for more effective solutions, in particular related to organizational context. Considerable advances have been made within the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) in systematically implementing evidence into practice. These advances have been achieved through a system-level program focused on collaboration and partnerships among policy makers, clinicians, and researchers. The Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) was created to generate research-driven initiatives that directly enhance health care quality within the VA and, simultaneously, contribute to the field of implementation science. This paradigm-shifting effort provided a natural laboratory for exploring organizational change processes. This article describes the underlying change framework and implementation strategy used to operationalize QUERI. STRATEGIC APPROACH TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: QUERI used an evidence-based organizational framework focused on three contextual elements: 1) cultural norms and values, in this case related to the role of health services researchers in evidence-based quality improvement; 2) capacity, in this case among researchers and key partners to engage in implementation research; 3) and supportive infrastructures to reinforce expectations for change and to sustain new behaviors as part of the norm. As part of a QUERI Series in Implementation Science, this article describes the framework's application in an innovative integration of health services research, policy, and clinical care delivery. CONCLUSION: QUERI's experience and success provide a case study in organizational change. It demonstrates that progress requires a strategic, systems-based effort. QUERI's evidence-based initiative involved a deliberate cultural shift, requiring ongoing commitment in multiple forms and at multiple levels. VA's commitment to QUERI came in the form of visionary leadership, targeted allocation of resources, infrastructure refinements, innovative peer review and study methods, and direct involvement of key stakeholders. Stakeholders included both those providing and managing clinical care, as well as those producing relevant evidence within the health care system. The organizational framework and related implementation interventions used to achieve contextual change resulted in engaged investigators and enhanced uptake of research knowledge. QUERI's approach and progress provide working hypotheses for others pursuing similar system-wide efforts to routinely achieve evidence-based care.

Overview of the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI Series.

BACKGROUND: Continuing challenges to timely adoption of evidence-based clinical practices in healthcare have generated intense interest in the development and application of new implementation methods and frameworks. These challenges led the United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to create the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) in the late 1990s. QUERI's purpose was to harness VA's health services research expertise and resources in an ongoing system-wide effort to improve the performance of the VA healthcare system and, thus, quality of care for veterans. QUERI in turn created a systematic means of involving VA researchers both in enhancing VA healthcare quality, by implementing evidence-based practices, and in contributing to the continuing development of implementation science. The efforts of VA researchers to improve healthcare delivery practices through QUERI and related initiatives are documented in a growing body of literature. The scientific frameworks and methodological approaches developed and employed by QUERI are less well described. A QUERI Series of articles in Implementation Science will illustrate many of these QUERI tools. This Overview article introduces both QUERI and the Series. METHODS: The Overview briefly explains the purpose and context of the QUERI Program. It then describes the following: the key operational structure of QUERI Centers, guiding frameworks designed to enhance implementation and related research, QUERI's progress and promise to date, and the Series' general content. QUERI's frameworks include a core set of steps for diagnosing and closing quality gaps and, simultaneously, advancing implementation science. Throughout the paper, the envisioned involvement and activities of VA researchers within QUERI Centers also are highlighted. The Series is then described, illustrating the use of QUERI frameworks and other tools designed to respond to implementation challenges. CONCLUSION: QUERI's simultaneous pursuit of improvement and research goals within a large healthcare system may be unique. However, descriptions of this still-evolving effort, including its conceptual frameworks, methodological approaches, and enabling processes, should have applicability to implementation researchers in a range of health care settings. Thus, the Series is offered as a resource for other implementation research programs and researchers pursuing common goals in improving care and developing the field of implementation science.

Evaluation of an evidence-based practice initiative: outcomes, strengths and limitations of a retrospective, conceptually-based approach.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Making evidence-based practice (EBP) a sustained reality is a difficult endeavor. This relates, among other factors, to lack of sufficient research upon which to base implementation efforts. Alternative sources of evidence therefore need to be considered, particularly where organizational level EBP is the goal. In this article a brief evaluation of a service-based initiative with the aim of obtaining insights regarding multiple types and levels of EBP-related outcomes is described. METHODS: A structured, retrospective improvement evaluation was conducted. Semi-structured interviews and available documents were chosen to obtain information regarding outcomes, perceived spread of reported individual changes, and factors related to the degree of progress. Underlying the method is an evaluation model that shows a progressive set of EBP outcomes at both individual and group levels. FINDINGS: Evaluative results, although limited by several factors, provided credible and sufficient internal evidence for this organization's leadership team to build upon past efforts and refine their approach to integrating research utilization (RU) throughout the department of nursing. For example, the evaluation indicated a set of RU outcomes at the individual nurse level not previously considered and also indicated limitations and challenges to full achievement of initial project-related goals. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The evaluation provided suggestive internal evidence regarding potential benefits of one component of a long-term, valued EBP initiative. However, the evaluation also raised questions regarding structural aspects of this initiative; identified barriers to progress; provided information for dialogue and planning; and highlighted future needs for a proactive, systematic evaluation and a documented trail of data related to all EBP program goals. For those in settings with similar characteristics and aims that have not built in such a prospective evaluation for EBP initiatives, this evaluative project can be assessed for its applicability.

Improving quality of care through routine, successful implementation of evidence-based practice at the bedside: an organizational case study protocol using the Pettigrew and Whipp model of strategic change.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an expected approach to improving the quality of patient care and service delivery in health care systems internationally that is yet to be realized. Given the current evidence-practice gap, numerous authors describe barriers to achieving EBP. One recurrently identified barrier is the setting or context of practice, which is likewise cited as a potential part of the solution to the gap. The purpose of this study is to identify key contextual elements and related strategic processes in organizations that find and use evidence at multiple levels, in an ongoing, integrated fashion, in contrast to those that do not. METHODS: The core theoretical framework for this multi-method explanatory case study is Pettigrew and Whipp's Content, Context, and Process model of strategic change. This framework focuses data collection on three entities: the Why of strategic change, the What of strategic change, and the How of strategic change, in this case related to implementation and normalization of EBP. The data collection plan, designed to capture relevant organizational context and related outcomes, focuses on eight interrelated factors said to characterize a receptive context. Selective, purposive sampling will provide contrasting results between two cases (departments of nursing) and three embedded units in each. Data collection methods will include quantitative tools (e.g., regarding culture) and qualitative approaches including focus groups, interviews, and documents review (e.g., regarding integration and "success") relevant to the EBP initiative. DISCUSSION: This study should provide information regarding contextual elements and related strategic processes key to successful implementation and sustainability of EBP, specifically in terms of a pervasive pattern in an acute care hospital-based health care setting. Additionally, this study will identify key contextual elements that differentiate successful implementation and sustainability of EBP efforts, both within varying levels of a hospital-based clinical setting and across similar hospital settings interested in EBP.

Role of "external facilitation" in implementation of research findings: a qualitative evaluation of facilitation experiences in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation has been identified in the literature as a potentially key component of successful implementation. It has not, however, either been well-defined or well-studied. Significant questions remain about the operational definition of facilitation and about the relationship of facilitation to other interventions, especially to other change agent roles when used in multi-faceted implementation projects. Researchers who are part of the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) are actively exploring various approaches and processes, including facilitation, to enable implementation of best practices in the Veterans Health Administration health care system - the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. This paper describes a systematic, retrospective evaluation of implementation-related facilitation experiences within QUERI, a quality improvement program developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. METHODS: A post-hoc evaluation was conducted through a series of semi-structured interviews to examine the concept of facilitation across several multi-site QUERI implementation studies. The interview process is based on a technique developed in the field of education, which systematically enhances learning through experience by stimulating recall and reflection regarding past complex activities. An iterative content analysis approach relative to a set of conceptually-based interview questions was used for data analysis. FINDINGS: Findings suggest that facilitation, within an implementation study initiated by a central change agency, is a deliberate and valued process of interactive problem solving and support that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and a supportive interpersonal relationship. Facilitation was described primarily as a distinct role with a number of potentially crucial behaviors and activities. Data further suggest that external facilitators were likely to use or integrate other implementation interventions, while performing this problem-solving and supportive role. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation provides evidence to suggest that facilitation could be considered a distinct implementation intervention, just as audit and feedback, educational outreach, or similar methods are considered to be discrete interventions. As such, facilitation should be well-defined and explicitly evaluated for its perceived usefulness within multi-intervention implementation projects. Additionally, researchers should better define the specific contribution of facilitation to the success of implementation in different types of projects, different types of sites, and with evidence and innovations of varying levels of strength and complexity.

The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience.

This article describes the importance and role of 4 stages of formative evaluation in our growing understanding of how to implement research findings into practice in order to improve the quality of clinical care. It reviews limitations of traditional approaches to implementation research and presents a rationale for new thinking and use of new methods. Developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused, and interpretive evaluations are then defined and illustrated with examples from Veterans Health Administration Quality Enhancement Research Initiative projects. This article also provides methodologic details and highlights challenges encountered in actualizing formative evaluation within implementation research.

Role of the organization in translating research into evidence-based practice.

Many healthcare services, including nursing, aspire to make evidence-based practice a part of their operations. Little systematic attention, however, has been paid as to how to effectively make this happen. This article presents a conceptual framework to assist those attempting to bring about widespread evidence-based practice. In light of supportive translation research and evaluation, it emphasizes the role of culture, capacity, and infrastructure as integral to the long-term, sustained success of such efforts.

Use of evidence for prevention of work-related musculoskeletal injuries.

Work-related injuries among nurses are a complex and costly problem. To thoughtfully approach this issue, one medical center developed a set of injury-reduction strategies and related tools based on a review of research literature and locally obtained evidence. This article describes the evidence-based approach to prevention of work-related musculoskeletal injuries. It also covers research-based observations about prevention strategies; provides a description of selected interventions, such as a patient handling guide; and includes sample tools that enable collection of meaningful data about local patient handling practices.