Understanding pathways from implementation to sustainment: a longitudinal, mixed methods analysis of promising practices implemented in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the United States largest learning health system. The Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program is a large-scale model of diffusion that identifies and diffuses evidence-informed practices across VHA. During the period of 2016-2021, 57 evidence-informed practices were implemented across 82 VHA facilities. This setting provides a unique opportunity to understand sustainment determinants and pathways. Our objective was to characterize the longitudinal pathways of practices as they transition from initial implementation to long-term sustainment at each facility. METHODS: A longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of 82 VHA facilities. Eighty-two facility representatives, chosen by leadership as points-of-contact for 57 DoE practices, were eligible for post-implementation interviews and annual sustainment surveys. Primary outcomes (implementation, sustainment), and secondary outcomes (institutionalization, effectiveness, anticipated sustainment) at four time-points were collected. We performed descriptive statistics and directed content analysis using Hailemariam et al.'s factors influencing sustainment. RESULTS: After approximately five years post-implementation (e.g., 2021 sustainment outcomes), of the 82 facilities, about one-third fully sustained their practice compared to one-third that did not fully sustain their practice because it was in a "liminal" stage (neither sustained nor discontinued) or permanently discontinued. The remaining one-third of facilities had missing 2021 sustainment outcomes. A higher percentage of facilities (70%) had inconsistent primary outcomes (changing over time) compared to facilities (30%) with consistent primary outcomes (same over time). Thirty-four percent of facilities with sustained practices reported resilience since they overcame implementation and sustainment barriers. Facilities with sustained practices reported more positive secondary outcomes compared to those that did not sustain their practice. Key factors facilitating practice sustainment included: demonstrating practice effectiveness/benefit, sufficient organizational leadership, sufficient workforce, and adaptation/alignment with local context. Key factors hindering practice sustainment included: insufficient workforce, not able to maintain practice fidelity/integrity, critical incidents related to the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational leadership did not support sustainment of practice, and no ongoing support. CONCLUSIONS: We identified diverse pathways from implementation to sustainment, and our data underscore that initial implementation outcomes may not determine long-term sustainment outcomes. This longitudinal evaluation contributes to understanding impacts of the DoE program, including return on investment, achieving learning health system goals, and insights into achieving high-quality healthcare in VHA.

Endohepatology: Arrival at the frontier of interventional endosonography.

Endohepatology describes the emerging field where diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are used for the diagnosis and management of liver disease and its sequelae. In this editorial we comment on the article by Gadour et al. The spectrum of EUS-guided procedures includes liver parenchymal and lesional biopsy, abscess drainage, treatment of focal liver lesions, diagnosis of portal hypertension and management of gastric varices. The data suggest that the application of EUS to hepatology is technically feasible and safe, heralding the arrival at a new frontier for EUS. More data, specifically randomised trials comparing EUS to interventional radiology techniques, and continued partnership between endoscopy and hepatology are required to see this field establish itself outside expert tertiary centres.

Global health reciprocal innovation: ethical, legal and regulatory considerations.

Global health reciprocal innovation (GHRI) is a recent and more formalised approach to conducting research that recognises and develops innovations (eg, medicines, devices, methodologies) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At present, studies using GHRI most commonly adapt innovations from LMICs for use in high-income countries (HICs), although some develop innovations in LMICs and HICs. In this paper, we propose that GHRI implicitly makes two ethical commitments: (1) to promote health innovations from LMICs, especially in HICs, and (2) to conduct studies on health innovations from LMICs in equitable partnerships between investigators in LMICs and HICs. We argue that these commitments take a significant step towards a more equal global health research enterprise while helping to ensure that populations and investigators in LMICs receive equitable benefits from studies using GHRI. However, studies using GHRI can raise potential ethical concerns and face legal and regulatory barriers. We propose ethical, legal and regulatory considerations to help address these concerns and barriers. We hope our recommendations will allow GHRI to move the global health research enterprise forward into an era where all people are treated equally as knowers and learners, while populations in both LMICs and HICs benefit equitably from studies using GHRI.

Implementation of Agile in healthcare: methodology for a multisite home hospital accelerator.

BACKGROUND: The diffusion of innovation in healthcare is sluggish. Evidence-based care models and interventions take years to reach patients. We believe the healthcare community could deliver innovation to the bedside faster if it followed other sectors by employing an organisational framework for efficiently accomplishing work. Home hospital is an example of sluggish diffusion. This model provides hospital-level care in a patient's home instead of in a traditional hospital with equal or better outcomes. Home hospital uptake has steadily grown during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet barriers to launch remain for healthcare organisations, including access to expertise and implementation tools. The Home Hospital Early Adopters Accelerator was created to bring together a network of healthcare organisations to develop tools necessary for programme implementation. METHODS: The accelerator used the Agile framework known as Scrum to rapidly coordinate work across many different specialised skill sets and blend individuals who had no experience with one another into efficient teams. Its goal was to take 40 weeks to develop 20 'knowledge products',or tools critical to the development of a home hospital programme such as workflows, inclusion criteria and protocols. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of the accelerator's implementation, measuring teams' productivity and experience. RESULTS: 18 healthcare organisations participated in the accelerator to produce the expected 20 knowledge products in only 32 working weeks, a 20% reduction in time. Nearly all (97.4%) participants agreed or strongly agreed the Scrum teams worked well together, and 96.8% felt the teams produced a high-quality product. Participants consistently remarked that the Scrum team developed products much faster than their respective organisational teams. The accelerator was not a panacea: it was challenging for some participants to become familiar with the Scrum framework and some participants struggled with balancing participation in the Accelerator with their job duties. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an Agile-based accelerator that joined disparate healthcare organisations into teams equipped to create knowledge products for home hospitals proved both efficient and effective. We demonstrate that implementing an organisational framework to accomplish work is a valuable approach that may be transformative for the sector.

Exploring the Role of Complexity in Health Care Technology Bottom-Up Innovations: Multiple-Case Study Using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability Complexity Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: New digital technology presents new challenges to health care on multiple levels. There are calls for further research that considers the complex factors related to digital innovations in complex health care settings to bridge the gap when moving from linear, logistic research to embracing and testing the concept of complexity. The nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to help study complexity in digital innovations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the role of complexity in the development and deployment of innovations by retrospectively assessing challenges to 4 digital health care innovations initiated from the bottom up. METHODS: A multicase retrospective, deductive, and explorative analysis using the NASSS complexity assessment tool LONG was conducted. In total, 4 bottom-up innovations developed in Region Västra Götaland in Sweden were explored and compared to identify unique and shared complexity-related challenges. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in joint insights and individual learning. Overall, the complexity was mostly found outside the actual innovation; more specifically, it related to the organization's readiness to integrate new innovations, how to manage and maintain innovations, and how to finance them. The NASSS framework sheds light on various perspectives that can either facilitate or hinder the adoption, scale-up, and spread of technological innovations. In the domain of condition or diagnosis, a well-informed understanding of the complexity related to the condition or illness (diabetes, cancer, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia disorders) is of great importance for the innovation. The value proposition needs to be clearly described early to enable an understanding of costs and outcomes. The questions in the NASSS complexity assessment tool LONG were sometimes difficult to comprehend, not only from a language perspective but also due to a lack of understanding of the surrounding organization's system and its setting. CONCLUSIONS: Even when bottom-up innovations arise within the same support organization, the complexity can vary based on the developmental phase and the unique characteristics of each project. Identifying, defining, and understanding complexity may not solve the issues but substantially improves the prospects for successful deployment. Successful innovation within complex organizations necessitates an adaptive leadership and structures to surmount cultural resistance and organizational impediments. A rigid, linear, and stepwise approach risks disregarding interconnected variables and dependencies, leading to suboptimal outcomes. Success lies in embracing the complexity with its uncertainty, nurturing creativity, and adopting a nonlinear methodology that accommodates the iterative nature of innovation processes within complex organizations.

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: Influence of centre volume on TAVR adoption rates and outcomes in France.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter (TAVR) has supplanted surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement (AVR). AIM: To evaluate whether adoption of this technology has varied according to centre volume at the nationwide level. METHODS: From an administrative hospital-discharge database, we collected data on all AVRs performed in France between 2007 and 2019. Centres were divided into terciles based on the annual number of SAVRs performed in 2007-2009 ("before TAVR era"). RESULTS: A total of 192,773 AVRs (134,662 SAVRs and 58,111 TAVRs) were performed in 47 centres. The annual number of AVRs and TAVRs increased significantly and linearly in low-volume (<152 SAVRs/year; median 106, interquartile range [IQR] 75-129), middle-volume (152-219 SAVRs/year; median 197, IQR 172-212) and high-volume (>219 SAVRs/year; median 303, IQR 268-513) terciles, but to a greater degree in the latter (+14, +16 and +24 AVRs/centre/year and +16, +19 and +31 TAVRs/centre/year, respectively; PANCOVA<0.001). Charlson Comorbidity Index and in-hospital death rates declined from 2010 to 2019 in all terciles (all Ptrend<0.05). In 2017-2019, after adjusting for age, sex and Charlson Comorbidity Index, there was a trend toward lower death rates in the high-volume tercile (P=0.06) for SAVR, whereas death rates were similar for TAVR irrespective of tercile (P=0.27). Similar results were obtained when terciles were defined based on number of interventions performed in the last instead of the first 3years. Importantly, even centres in the lowest-volume tercile performed a relatively high number of interventions (150 TAVRs/year/centre). CONCLUSIONS: In a centralized public healthcare system, the total number of AVRs increased linearly between 2007 and 2019, mostly due to an increase in TAVR, irrespective of centre volume. Progressive declines in patient risk profiles and death rates were observed in all terciles; in 2017-2019 death rates were similar in all terciles, although lower in high-volume centres for SAVR.

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research.

Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists' visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community's ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.

Impact of the endovascular revolution on vascular training through analysis of national data case reports.

BACKGROUND: In the last couple of decades, there has been a shift in use of endovascular procedures in vascular surgery. We aim to examine the impact of this endovascular shift on vascular trainees, determine whether the surgical experiences of trainees in the integrated residency and fellowship program changed over time, and identify differences between the two training paradigms. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education National Data Case Logs for the vascular surgery fellowship (1999-2021) and integrated residency (2012-2021) programs. Every procedure was categorized as open or endovascular, then designated into the following subcategories: thoracic aneurysm repairs, cerebrovascular, abdominal aneurysm repairs, venous, vascular access, peripheral arterial disease, visceral, or miscellaneous. We compared the prevalence of open and endovascular cases in the fellowship and integrated residency using data from overlapping years (2012-2021). In addition, we compared the mean number of cases per trainee per year within designated time intervals. The vascular surgery fellowship was grouped into three intervals: 1999 to 2006, 2006 to 2013, and 2013 to 2021; the integrated vascular surgery residency was grouped into two intervals: 2012 to 2017 and 2017 to 2021. Data were standardized to represent the average number of cases per trainee per year. RESULTS: Within the fellowship, we found a 362.37% increase in endovascular procedures (mean, 56.80 ± 32.57 vs 262.63 ± 9.91; P < .001), although there was only a 32.47% increase in open procedures (220.19 ± 4.55 vs 291.68 ± 8.20) between the first and last time intervals. There was a decrease in abdominal aneurysm repair (24.46 ± 7.30 vs 13.85 ± 0.58; P < .001) and visceral (6.41 ± 0.44 vs 5.80 ± 0.42; P = .039) open procedures. For the integrated residency, there was an increase in open procedures by 8.52% (352.18 ± 8.23 vs 382.20 ± 5.84; P < .001). Residents had greater total, open, and endovascular procedures per year than fellows (all P < .001). Chief residents had approximately one-half as many cases as vascular fellows per year. Fellows performed more open abdominal aneurysm repair (14.04 ± 0.80 vs 12.40 ± 1.32; P = .007) and visceral (5.83 ± 0.41 vs 4.88 ± 0.46; P > .001) procedures than residents. Overall, 52% to 53% of cases performed by trainees per year were open procedures in both the fellowship and integrated residency (288.56 ± 12.10 vs 261.27 ± 10.13, 365.52 ± 17.23 vs 319.58 ± 6.62; both P < .001). Within the subcategories, only cerebrovascular, vascular access, and miscellaneous had more open procedures performed per trainee. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgery training has incorporated new endovascular techniques and technologies while maintaining operative training in open procedures. Despite changes in vascular surgery training, trainees are still performing more open procedures than endovascular procedures per year. However, there are evolving deficits in specific types of procedures.

Working Toward Recommended Terminology in the Canadian Preschool Speech-Language Pathology Context.

PURPOSE: This quality improvement project aimed to address the inconsistent use of clinical labels across a preschool speech and language program in Ontario, Canada. The study investigated whether a multicomponent knowledge translation (KT) intervention could increase speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') knowledge about the recommended clinical labels, motivate their intentions to use the labels, and facilitate practice change during a 3-month pilot period. METHOD: The diffusion of innovations theory was utilized to identify and address known and suspected barriers and facilitators that could influence the adoption of consistent terminology. The intervention was evaluated using a pre-experimental study design (with pre, post, and follow-up testing) and included two phases: Phase 1 involved the pretraining survey, KT intervention, and posttraining survey, and Phase 2 included an exit survey after a 3-month pilot period. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-nine SLPs in Phase 1 and 387 SLPs in Phase 2 participated. Following the web-based intervention, SLPs demonstrated improved knowledge about the recommended labels with most indicating intentions to communicate the labels going forward. SLPs also reported increased comfort using labels and positive views on their importance and value. After the 3-month pilot period, SLPs' reported use of most recommended labels decreased, as did ratings of comfort, value, and importance. However, most SLPs reported intentions to use the labels going forward. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having intentions to adopt the recommended labels, the lack of implementation by SLPs suggests the presence of additional barriers impacting their use of the recommended clinical labels in practice. Future work should investigate clinician-identified barriers to inform future implementation efforts. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25254940.

Clinical Research in Renal Transplantation: A Bibliometric Perspective on a Half-century of Innovation and Progress.

BACKGROUND: Groundbreaking biomedical research has transformed renal transplantation (RT) into a widespread clinical procedure that represents the mainstay of treatment for end-stage kidney failure today. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive bibliometric perspective on the last half-century of innovation in clinical RT. METHODS: The Web of Science Core Collection was used for a comprehensive screening yielding 123 303 research items during a 50-y period (January 1973-October 2022). The final data set of the 200 most-cited articles was selected on the basis of a citation-based strategy aiming to minimize bias. RESULTS: Studies on clinical and immunological outcomes (n = 63 and 48), registry-based epi research (n = 38), and randomized controlled trials (n = 35) dominated the data set. Lead US authors have signed 110 of 200 articles. The overall level of evidence was high, with 84% of level1 and -2 reports. Highest numbers of these articles were published in New England Journal of Medicine , Transplantation , and American Journal of Transplantation. Increasing trend was observed in the number of female authors in the postmillennial era (26% versus 7%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights important trends in RT research of the past half-century. This bibliometric perspective identifies the most intensively researched areas and shift of research interests over time; however, it also describes important imbalances in distribution of academic prolificacy based on topic, geographical aspects, and gender.

Innovation Diffusion Across 13 Specialties and Associated Clinician Characteristics.

Diffusion of innovations, defined as the adoption and implementation of new ideas, processes, products, or services in health care, is both particularly important and especially challenging. One known problem with adoption and implementation of new technologies is that, while organizations often make innovations immediately available, organizational actors are more wary about adopting new technologies because these may impact not only patients and practices but also reimbursement. As a result, innovations may remain underutilized, and organizations may miss opportunities to improve and advance. As innovation adoption is vital to achieving success and remaining competitive, it is important to measure and understand factors that impact innovation diffusion. Building on a survey of a national sample of 654 clinicians, our study measures the extent of diffusion of value-enhancing care delivery innovations (i.e., technologies that not only improve quality of care but has potential to reduce care cost by diminishing waste, Faems et al., 2010) for 13 clinical specialties and identifies healthcare-specific individual characteristics such as: professional purview, supervisory responsibility, financial incentive, and clinical tenure associated with innovation diffusion. We also examine the association of innovation diffusion with perceived value of one type of care delivery innovation - artificial intelligence (AI) - for assisting clinicians in their clinical work. Responses indicate that less than two-thirds of clinicians were knowledgeable about and aware of relevant value-enhancing care delivery innovations. Clinicians with broader professional purview, more supervisory responsibility, and stronger financial incentives had higher innovation diffusion scores, indicating greater knowledge and awareness of value-enhancing, care delivery innovations. Higher levels of knowledge of the innovations and awareness of their implementation were associated with higher perceptions of the value of AI-based technology. Our study contributes to our knowledge of diffusion of innovation in healthcare delivery and highlights potential mechanisms for speeding innovation diffusion.