scholarly journals Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies (Preprint)

Author(s):  
Trisha Greenhalgh ◽  
Joseph Wherton ◽  
Chrysanthi Papoutsi ◽  
Jennifer Lynch ◽  
Gemma Hughes ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Many promising technological innovations in health and social care are characterized by nonadoption or abandonment by individuals or by failed attempts to scale up locally, spread distantly, or sustain the innovation long term at the organization or system level. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to produce an evidence-based, theory-informed, and pragmatic framework to help predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program. METHODS The study had 2 parallel components: (1) secondary research (hermeneutic systematic review) to identify key domains, and (2) empirical case studies of technology implementation to explore, test, and refine these domains. We studied 6 technology-supported programs—video outpatient consultations, global positioning system tracking for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organizing software, and integrated case management via data sharing—using longitudinal ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across more than 20 organizations. Data were collected at micro level (individual technology users), meso level (organizational processes and systems), and macro level (national policy and wider context). Analysis and synthesis was aided by sociotechnically informed theories of individual, organizational, and system change. The draft framework was shared with colleagues who were introducing or evaluating other technology-supported health or care programs and refined in response to feedback. RESULTS The literature review identified 28 previous technology implementation frameworks, of which 14 had taken a dynamic systems approach (including 2 integrative reviews of previous work). Our empirical dataset consisted of over 400 hours of ethnographic observation, 165 semistructured interviews, and 200 documents. The final nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework included questions in 7 domains: the condition or illness, the technology, the value proposition, the adopter system (comprising professional staff, patient, and lay caregivers), the organization(s), the wider (institutional and societal) context, and the interaction and mutual adaptation between all these domains over time. Our empirical case studies raised a variety of challenges across all 7 domains, each classified as simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). Programs characterized by complicatedness proved difficult but not impossible to implement. Those characterized by complexity in multiple NASSS domains rarely, if ever, became mainstreamed. The framework showed promise when applied (both prospectively and retrospectively) to other programs. CONCLUSIONS Subject to further empirical testing, NASSS could be applied across a range of technological innovations in health and social care. It has several potential uses: (1) to inform the design of a new technology; (2) to identify technological solutions that (perhaps despite policy or industry enthusiasm) have a limited chance of achieving large-scale, sustained adoption; (3) to plan the implementation, scale-up, or rollout of a technology program; and (4) to explain and learn from program failures.

10.2196/16861 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e16861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trisha Greenhalgh ◽  
Harvey Maylor ◽  
Sara Shaw ◽  
Joseph Wherton ◽  
Chrysanthi Papoutsi ◽  
...  

Background Projects to implement health care and social care innovations involving technologies are typically ambitious and complex. Many projects fail. Greenhalgh et al’s nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to analyze the varied outcomes of such projects. Objective We sought to extend the NASSS framework to produce practical tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology projects in health care or social care settings. Methods Building on NASSS and a complexity assessment tool (CAT), the NASSS-CAT tools were developed (in various formats) in seven co-design workshops involving 50 stakeholders (industry executives, technical designers, policymakers, managers, clinicians, and patients). Using action research, they were and are being tested prospectively on a sample of case studies selected for variety in conditions, technologies, settings, scope and scale, policy context, and project goals. Results The co-design process resulted in four tools, available as free downloads. NASSS-CAT SHORT is a taster to introduce the instrument and gauge interest. NASSS-CAT LONG is intended to support reflection, due diligence, and preliminary planning. It maps complexity through stakeholder discussion across six domains, using free-text open questions (designed to generate a rich narrative and surface uncertainties and interdependencies) and a closed-question checklist; this version includes an action planning section. NASSS-CAT PROJECT is a 35-item instrument for monitoring how subjective complexity in a technology implementation project changes over time. NASSS-CAT INTERVIEW is a set of prompts for conducting semistructured research or evaluation interviews. Preliminary data from empirical case studies suggest that the NASSS-CAT tools can potentially identify, but cannot always help reconcile, contradictions and conflicts that block projects’ progress. Conclusions The NASSS-CAT tools are a useful addition to existing implementation tools and frameworks. Further support of the implementation projects is ongoing. We are currently producing digital versions of the tools, and plan (subject to further funding) to establish an online community of practice for people interested in using and improving the tools, and hold workshops for building cross-project collaborations. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/16861


Author(s):  
Trisha Greenhalgh ◽  
Harvey Maylor ◽  
Sara Shaw ◽  
Joseph Wherton ◽  
Chrysanthi Papoutsi ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Projects to implement health care and social care innovations involving technologies are typically ambitious and complex. Many projects fail. Greenhalgh et al’s nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to analyze the varied outcomes of such projects. OBJECTIVE We sought to extend the NASSS framework to produce practical tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology projects in health care or social care settings. METHODS Building on NASSS and a complexity assessment tool (CAT), the NASSS-CAT tools were developed (in various formats) in seven co-design workshops involving 50 stakeholders (industry executives, technical designers, policymakers, managers, clinicians, and patients). Using action research, they were and are being tested prospectively on a sample of case studies selected for variety in conditions, technologies, settings, scope and scale, policy context, and project goals. RESULTS The co-design process resulted in four tools, available as free downloads. NASSS-CAT SHORT is a taster to introduce the instrument and gauge interest. NASSS-CAT LONG is intended to support reflection, due diligence, and preliminary planning. It maps complexity through stakeholder discussion across six domains, using free-text open questions (designed to generate a rich narrative and surface uncertainties and interdependencies) and a closed-question checklist; this version includes an action planning section. NASSS-CAT PROJECT is a 35-item instrument for monitoring how subjective complexity in a technology implementation project changes over time. NASSS-CAT INTERVIEW is a set of prompts for conducting semistructured research or evaluation interviews. Preliminary data from empirical case studies suggest that the NASSS-CAT tools can potentially identify, but cannot always help reconcile, contradictions and conflicts that block projects’ progress. CONCLUSIONS The NASSS-CAT tools are a useful addition to existing implementation tools and frameworks. Further support of the implementation projects is ongoing. We are currently producing digital versions of the tools, and plan (subject to further funding) to establish an online community of practice for people interested in using and improving the tools, and hold workshops for building cross-project collaborations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/16861


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e029723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Kjellström ◽  
Kristina Areskoug-Josefsson ◽  
Boel Andersson Gäre ◽  
Ann-Christine Andersson ◽  
Marlene Ockander ◽  
...  

IntroductionCocreation, coproduction and codesign are advocated as effective ways of involving citizens in the design, management, provision and evaluation of health and social care services. Although numerous case studies describe the nature and level of coproduction in individual projects, there remain three significant gaps in the evidence base: (1) measures of coproduction processes and their outcomes, (2) mechanisms that enable inclusivity and reciprocity and (3) management systems and styles. By focusing on these issues, we aim to explore, enhance and measure the value of coproduction for improving the health and well-being of citizens.Methods and analysisNine ongoing coproduction projects form the core of an interactive research programme (‘Samskapa’) during a 6-year period (2019–2024). Six of these will take place in Sweden and three will be undertaken in England to enable knowledge exchange and cross-cultural comparison. The programme has a longitudinal case study design using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Cross-case analysis and a sensemaking process will generate relevant lessons both for those participating in the projects and researchers. Based on the findings, we will develop explanatory models and other outputs to increase the sustained value (and values) of future coproduction initiatives in these sectors.Ethics and disseminationAll necessary ethical approvals will be obtained from the regional Ethical Board in Sweden and from relevant authorities in England. All data and personal data will be handled in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations. Given the interactive nature of the research programme, knowledge dissemination to participants and stakeholders in the nine projects will be ongoing throughout the 6 years. External workshops—facilitated in collaboration with participating case studies and citizens—both during and at the end of the programme will provide an additional dissemination mechanism and involve health and social care practitioners, policymakers and third-sector organisations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 1165-1181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Harrop ◽  
Mala Mann ◽  
Lenira Semedo ◽  
Davina Chao ◽  
Lucy E Selman ◽  
...  

Background: The global COVID-19 pandemic has left health and social care systems facing the challenge of supporting large numbers of bereaved people in difficult and unprecedented social conditions. Previous reviews have not comprehensively synthesised the evidence on the response of health and social care systems to mass bereavement events. Aim: To synthesise the evidence regarding system-level responses to mass bereavement events, including natural and human-made disasters as well as pandemics, to inform service provision and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Design: A rapid systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero , CRD 42020180723). Data sources: MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2020. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed. Results: Six studies were included reporting on system responses to mass bereavement following human-made and natural disasters, involving a range of individual and group-based support initiatives. Positive impacts were reported, but study quality was generally low and reliant on data from retrospective evaluation designs. Key features of service delivery were identified: a proactive outreach approach, centrally organised but locally delivered interventions, event-specific professional competencies and an emphasis on psycho-educational content. Conclusion: Despite the limitations in the quantity and quality of the evidence base, consistent messages are identified for bereavement support provision during the pandemic. High quality primary studies are needed to ensure service improvement in the current crisis and to guide future disaster response efforts.


BMJ Leader ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Tweed ◽  
Andrew Singfield ◽  
Julia R A Taylor ◽  
Lucy Gilbert ◽  
Paul Mount

BackgroundWithin the UK National Health Service (NHS) the move to Sustainable Transformation Plans/Partnerships and Integrated Care Systems reflect the increasing need and expectation for transformational change at a system level across both health and social care boundaries. Transformational change is complex, emergent and dynamic requiring new, non-traditional forms of leadership which are highly relational and persuasive.Aim of the studyThe current study aimed to explore a small number of NHS senior leaders’ experiences of undertaking transformational change within their localities over a period of a year following participation in a national transformational change programme designed to enhance personal capabilities.MethodFour pairs of leaders working on different change programmes took part in the study and were interviewed at three time points about their approach to their change work. The data were analysed qualitatively using template analysis.ResultsA core theme of Creating Allegiance to an Emergent Future World was developed. The senior leaders created allegiance to the transformational change through a process of Connecting on three levels: relational, with purpose and vision and through practice. Allegiance creation was attempted even if the transformational change work at the year-end was deemed successful or not.ConclusionsThe study highlights the types of leadership behaviours employed by the participants reflecting the complexity and social construction of their transformational work. The findings provide further evidence to the existing system leadership literature as well as emphasising the importance of creating stakeholder, multilevel buy-in to healthcare transformation.


Author(s):  
Tom Burns ◽  
Mike Firn

Engagement is defined and a classification of engagement-related activity presented, underlining the centrality of individual and team relationships in delivering health and social care to individuals. Case studies provide practical illustration of differing approaches in the hierarchy of engaging individuals in treatment, from mutually constructive strategies to more restrictive tactics for people who avoid services. Throughout, the patient and service perspective is compared, for example, when does conscientious follow-up become perceived as harassment? Critique and evidence from research and patient testimony is provided. The value of engagement measures are discussed, including patient reported attachment and proxy measures of missed appointments and dropout.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-84
Author(s):  
Rob Anderson ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Alison Eastwood ◽  
Mark Rodgers ◽  
Liz Shaw ◽  
...  

Background For systematic reviews to be rigorous, deliverable and useful, they need a well-defined review question. Scoping for a review also requires the specification of clear inclusion criteria and planned synthesis methods. Guidance is lacking on how to develop these, especially in the context of undertaking rapid and responsive systematic reviews to inform health services and health policy. Objective This report describes and discusses the experiences of review scoping of three commissioned research centres that conducted evidence syntheses to inform health and social care organisation, delivery and policy in the UK, between 2017 and 2020. Data sources Sources included researcher recollection, project meeting minutes, e-mail correspondence with stakeholders and scoping searches, from allocation of a review topic through to review protocol agreement. Methods We produced eight descriptive case studies of selected reviews from the three teams. From case studies, we identified key issues that shape the processes of scoping and question formulation for evidence synthesis. The issues were then discussed and lessons drawn. Findings Across the eight diverse case studies, we identified 14 recurrent issues that were important in shaping the scoping processes and formulating a review’s questions. There were ‘consultative issues’ that related to securing input from review commissioners, policy customers, experts, patients and other stakeholders. These included managing and deciding priorities, reconciling different priorities/perspectives, achieving buy-in and engagement, educating the end-user about synthesis processes and products, and managing stakeholder expectations. There were ‘interface issues’ that related to the interaction between the review team and potential review users. These included identifying the niche/gap and optimising value, assuring and balancing rigour/reliability/relevance, and assuring the transferability/applicability of study evidence to specific policy/service user contexts. There were also ‘technical issues’ that were associated with the methods and conduct of the review. These were choosing the method(s) of synthesis, balancing fixed and fluid review questions/components/definitions, taking stock of what research already exists, mapping versus scoping versus reviewing, scoping/relevance as a continuous process and not just an initial stage, and calibrating general compared with specific and broad compared with deep coverage of topics. Limitations As a retrospective joint reflection by review teams on their experiences of scoping processes, this report is not based on prospectively collected research data. In addition, our evaluations were not externally validated by, for example, policy and service evidence users or patients and the public. Conclusions We have summarised our reflections on scoping from this programme of reviews as 14 common issues and 28 practical ‘lessons learned’. Effective scoping of rapid, responsive reviews extends beyond information exchange and technical procedures for specifying a ‘gap’ in the evidence. These considerations work alongside social processes, in particular the building of relationships and shared understanding between reviewers, research commissioners and potential review users that may be reflective of consultancy, negotiation and co-production models of research and information use. Funding This report has been based on work commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as three university-based evidence synthesis centres to inform the organisation, delivery and commissioning of health and social care; at the University of Exeter (NIHR 16/47/22), the University of Sheffield (NIHR 16/47/17) and the University of York (NIHR 16/47/11). This report was commissioned by the NIHR HSDR programme as a review project (NIHR132708) within the NIHR HSDR programme. This project was funded by the NIHR HSDR programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Aiello ◽  
Julian D. Mellor

Purpose The NHS needs to adapt as never before to maintain and plan for an integrated and sustainable multi-professional workforce, spanning all health and care sectors. This cannot happen without system leaders embracing workforce transformation at scale and enabling system-wide collaboration and support for multi-professional learning and role development. “By learning together, we learn how to work together”. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The case studies included in this paper provide evidence of the ability of NHS systems to adopt integrated workforce models at scale. The case studies were chosen to demonstrate how system-wide change is possible, but still requires a partnership approach to innovation, strategic workforce planning and commissioner support for new models of care. Findings With partnership working between arm’s length bodies, commissioners, educators and workforce planners, the NHS is more than capable of generating a transformed workforce; a workforce able to continue providing safe, effective and joined-up person-centred care. Research limitations/implications The focus of this paper is integrated workforce development undertaken by Health Education England from 2017 to the date of drafting. The case studies within this paper relate to England only and are a cross-section chosen by the authors as a representative of Health Education England activity. Practical implications The NHS needs to find ways to use the wider health and care workforce to manage an ever-increasing and diverse patient population. Silo working, traditional models of workforce planning and commissioning no longer provide an appropriate response to increasing patient need and complexity. Social implications The evolution of the NHS into a joined-up, integrated health and social care workforce is essential to meet the aspirations of national policy and local workforce need – to centre care holistically on the needs of patients and populations and blur the boundaries between primary and secondary care; health and social care; physical and mental health. Originality/value This paper contains Health Education England project work and outcomes which are original and as yet unpublished.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Cristofori ◽  
L Brunelli ◽  
C Battistella ◽  
A Agnoletto ◽  
A Catelani ◽  
...  

Abstract Home care is managed with extreme heterogeneity among Italian regions by healthcare and social services. Standardization and self-assessment of these activities can improve their quality and outcomes. The goal of the study is to develop and validate an accreditation tool that provides minimum standards for home care. A multidisciplinary group of health and social care professionals developed a new tool according to the Deming cycle, including 26 items for a total of 144 standards grouped in 6 areas: Organization&governance (A1); Patient safety&clinical risk (A2); Job description, knowledge and skills (A3); Communication&information (A4); Integration tools in care processes (A5); Improvement&innovation (A6). Between April and November 2019, 40 experts from Italian primary care and social services of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (FVG) and Veneto Regions were asked by email to evaluate the tool using Delphi methodology. Experts were asked to score each standard according to relevance and feasibility (RF) on a 1 to 9 point scale. RF and agreement among experts were considered good respectively when mean score was >7, and 70% of responses were greater than 7. A total of 21 experts' reviews were collected, with a response rate of 53%. Most responders came from the healthcare setting (71%) and FVG Region (86%). Globally, 101 standards (70%) were rated as good. RF mean and agreement resulted to be good for: A1 (7.6; 81%); A2 (7.4; 71%); A4 (7.5; 86%); A5 (8.0; 86%). More critical results were achieved concerning A3 (7.0; 52%) and A6 (6.5; 43%). Most standards were recognized as both relevant and feasible by experts, confirming the tool developed for home care accreditation. Agreement for Job description, knowledge and skills, and Improvement&innovation areas seems harder to be achieved. The evaluation of detailed experts' comments would further improve the tool, and a pilot study will be implemented in the next future to test its reliability. Key messages The implementation of the home care accreditation could reduce inequalities among contexts, while helping quality and patient safety improvement outside healthcare facilities. The existence of a unique home care accreditation tool can foster the integration between health and social care while reducing hospitalizations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document