Building implementation capacity in health care and welfare through team training-study protocol of a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation of the building implementation capacity intervention.

BACKGROUND: To ensure the provision of high-quality safety and cost-effective health and welfare services, managers and professionals are required to introduce and ensure the routine use of clinical guidelines and other evidence-based interventions. Despite this, they often lack training and support in implementation. This project aims to investigate how a team training intervention, with the goal to build implementation capacity, influences participants' implementation knowledge and skills, as well as how it influences implementation activities and implementation capacity within participating health and welfare organizations. Furthermore, the aim is to investigate how the organizations' contexts influence the intervention outcomes. METHODS: The building implementation capacity (BIC) intervention builds on the behavior change wheel, which considers implementation as a matter of behavior change. The intervention will be provided to teams of managers and professionals working in health and welfare organizations and seeking support to implement a guideline- or evidence-based intervention. The intervention consists of a series of interactive workshops that provides the participating teams with the knowledge and skills to apply a systematic implementation model. A longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, including interviews, surveys, and document analysis, will be applied over 24 months. The normalization process theory measure will be used to assess how the intervention influences implementation activities in practice and implementation capacity in the teams and the wider organizations. DISCUSSION: This project has an ambition to add to the knowledge concerning how to promote the uptake of research findings into health care by building implementation capacity through team training in implementation. The project's uniqueness is that it is designed to move beyond individual-level outcomes and evaluate implementation activities and implementation capacity in participating organizations. Further, the intervention will be evaluated over 24 months to investigate long-term outcomes of implementation training.

Exploring experiences of implementing standardized cancer patient pathways within investigatory units - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In the implementation of standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs), the investigatory units, endoscopy, radiology and pathology, are crucial to ensure an eventual cancer diagnosis. However, when evaluating the implementation of CPPs, little attention has been paid to the healthcare professionals working in these units. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of the implementation of CPPs among health professionals in investigatory units. METHODS: This descriptive qualitative study included 55 health professionals working in investigatory units. Participants were interviewed in 2017-2018, and data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The health professionals reported benefits, facilitators and challenges when describing their experiences of implementing CPPs. Benefits included that CPP improved collaboration and increased focus on the patients. Facilitators in the implementation process included pre-existing well-functioning work processes and having supportive functions (e.g. coordinators). Challenges included the lack of staff and clinical equipment, as well as unjustified time-slots and incorrect referrals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that most health professionals working in investigatory units' experience benefits with the implementation of CPP, but the lack of resources was especially hard to overcome.

Implementing standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs) - a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have implemented standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs) to reduce waiting times in cancer care and to ensure timely and quick diagnosis as well as treatment. Yet, no studies have explored the implementation process as perceived by the health care professionals working in the CPPs. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of health care professionals (HPCs) involved in the CPPs. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative design was adopted. Thematic analysis was applied to individual interviews conducted in 2016-2017 with 58 participants working in six different CPPs in Sweden's largest region, covering care for around 2.3 million inhabitants. RESULTS: In general, the health care professionals had a positive attitude towards the implementation of the CPPs. Our findings showed that the CPPs require close collaboration, both between and within different health care professional groups and units, something that was not always probable due to differences in resource capacity. Better dissemination to all relevant professionals, better conceptualization, and equivalent opportunities in terms of resources were identified by the respondents as being important yet lacking in practice. The analysis showed possible negative effects of the CPP, such as crowding-out on other patient groups. CONCLUSION: The CPPs were introduced to address challenges with long waiting times and unequal cancer care. By exploring the experiences of health care professionals involved in the implementation of CPPs, our findings show challenges with multi-level coordination and collaboration, policy dissemination, and resource constraints. The analysis also showed that the implementation of CPPs risk being accompanied by unintended effects such as longer waiting times for other patients and patient groups in need of the same health care resources. The results shed light on and contribute to an understanding of the challenges, opportunities and ways forward.

Building implementation capacity (BIC): a longitudinal mixed methods evaluation of a team intervention.

BACKGROUND: Managers and professionals in health and social care are required to implement evidence-based methods. Despite this, they generally lack training in implementation. In clinical settings, implementation is often a team effort, so it calls for team training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Building Implementation Capacity (BIC) intervention that targets teams of professionals, including their managers. METHODS: A non-randomized design was used, with two intervention cases (each consisting of two groups). The longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation included pre-post and workshop-evaluation questionnaires, and interviews following Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation framework. The intervention was delivered in five workshops, using a systematic implementation method with exercises and practical working materials. To improve transfer of training, the teams' managers were included. Practical experiences were combined with theoretical knowledge, social interactions, reflections, and peer support. RESULTS: Overall, the participants were satisfied with the intervention (first level), and all groups increased their self-rated implementation knowledge (second level). The qualitative results indicated that most participants applied what they had learned by enacting new implementation behaviors (third level). However, they only partially applied the implementation method, as they did not use the planned systematic approach. A few changes in organizational results occurred (fourth level). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had positive effects with regard to the first two levels of the evaluation model; that is, the participants were satisfied with the intervention and improved their knowledge and skills. Some positive changes also occurred on the third level (behaviors) and fourth level (organizational results), but these were not as clear as the results for the first two levels. This highlights the fact that further optimization is needed to improve transfer of training when building teams' implementation capacity. In addition to considering the design of such interventions, the organizational context and the participants' characteristics may also need to be considered to maximize the chances that the learned skills will be successfully transferred to behaviors.

Change of Community Readiness Over Time: Measurements of Reduction of Parental Support and Availability of Alcohol in Seven Communities.

Aim To test the possibility of identifying community readiness changes over time. Method Key responders in seven municipalities in Stockholm County were interviewed about the availability of alcohol and parental support. The results were analyzed with paired t tests. Changes in community readiness were assessed. Ninety-three key responders from the participating communities were interviewed three times each, resulting in a total of 315 interviews. Data were collected on three occasions separated by ten months from semistructured telephone interviews based on the community readiness model. Findings Significant readiness changes were found for both issues from baseline to the first follow-up. In terms of the six dimensions of community readiness, significant differences were evident from baseline to the first follow-up for parental support and the reduction of alcohol availability. Apart from knowledge of reduced alcohol availability, there were no significant changes in overall readiness or in the dimensions from the first follow-up to the second. The findings of this study are discussed in relation to earlier studies. Conclusion In communities with an initial vague awareness of issues, a change in readiness level occurs in less than a year.