Impact of a health services innovation university program in a major public hospital and health service: a mixed methods evaluation.
Capacity-building
Evaluation
Evidence-based practice
Health service research
Implementation science
Innovation
Knowledge translation
Journal
Implementation science communications
ISSN: 2662-2211
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101764360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Apr 2022
25 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
10
05
2021
accepted:
29
03
2022
entrez:
26
4
2022
pubmed:
27
4
2022
medline:
27
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While health services and their clinicians might seek to be innovative, finite budgets, increased demands on health services, and ineffective implementation strategies create challenges to sustaining innovation. These challenges can be addressed by building staff capacity to design cost-effective, evidence-based innovations, and selecting appropriate implementation strategies. A bespoke university award qualification and associated program of activities was developed to build the capacity of staff at Australia's largest health service to implement and evaluate evidence-based practice (EBP): a Graduate Certificate in Health Science majoring in Health Services Innovation. The aim of this study was to establish the health service's pre-program capacity to implement EBP and to identify preliminary changes in capacity that have occurred as a result of the Health Services Innovation program. A mixed methods design underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the research design, data collection, and analysis. Data about EBP implementation capacity aligned to the framework constructs were sought through qualitative interviews of university and health service executives, focus groups with students, and a quantitative survey of managers and students. The outcomes measured were knowledge of, attitudes towards, and use of EBP within the health service, as well as changes to practice which students identified had resulted from their participation in the program. The Health Services Innovation program has contributed to short-term changes in health service capacity to implement EBP. Participating students have not only increased their individual skills and knowledge, but also changed their EPB culture and practice which has ignited and sustained health service innovations and improvements in the first 18 months of the program. Capacity changes observed across wider sections of the organization include an increase in connections and networks, use of a shared language, and use of robust implementation science methods such as stakeholder analyses. This is a unique study that assessed data from all stakeholders: university and health service executives, students, and their managers. By assembling multiple perspectives, we identified that developing the social capital of the organization through delivering a full suite of capacity-building initiatives was critical to the preliminary success of the program.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
While health services and their clinicians might seek to be innovative, finite budgets, increased demands on health services, and ineffective implementation strategies create challenges to sustaining innovation. These challenges can be addressed by building staff capacity to design cost-effective, evidence-based innovations, and selecting appropriate implementation strategies. A bespoke university award qualification and associated program of activities was developed to build the capacity of staff at Australia's largest health service to implement and evaluate evidence-based practice (EBP): a Graduate Certificate in Health Science majoring in Health Services Innovation. The aim of this study was to establish the health service's pre-program capacity to implement EBP and to identify preliminary changes in capacity that have occurred as a result of the Health Services Innovation program.
METHODS
METHODS
A mixed methods design underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the research design, data collection, and analysis. Data about EBP implementation capacity aligned to the framework constructs were sought through qualitative interviews of university and health service executives, focus groups with students, and a quantitative survey of managers and students. The outcomes measured were knowledge of, attitudes towards, and use of EBP within the health service, as well as changes to practice which students identified had resulted from their participation in the program.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The Health Services Innovation program has contributed to short-term changes in health service capacity to implement EBP. Participating students have not only increased their individual skills and knowledge, but also changed their EPB culture and practice which has ignited and sustained health service innovations and improvements in the first 18 months of the program. Capacity changes observed across wider sections of the organization include an increase in connections and networks, use of a shared language, and use of robust implementation science methods such as stakeholder analyses.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is a unique study that assessed data from all stakeholders: university and health service executives, students, and their managers. By assembling multiple perspectives, we identified that developing the social capital of the organization through delivering a full suite of capacity-building initiatives was critical to the preliminary success of the program.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35468818
doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00293-3
pii: 10.1186/s43058-022-00293-3
pmc: PMC9036712
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
46Subventions
Organisme : Queensland University of Technology
ID : No award number
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Implement Sci. 2014 Aug 12;9:90
pubmed: 25112430
Lancet. 2010 Dec 4;376(9756):1923-58
pubmed: 21112623
J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27(3):312-29
pubmed: 23885396
Implement Sci. 2020 Oct 30;15(1):97
pubmed: 33126909
Implement Sci. 2018 Apr 25;13(1):63
pubmed: 29695267
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Jan;38(1):4-23
pubmed: 21197565
J Health Organ Manag. 2004;18(6):399-414
pubmed: 15588011
Implement Sci. 2019 Nov 21;14(1):97
pubmed: 31752914
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2016 Apr;31(2):208-26
pubmed: 25424863
J R Soc Med. 2011 Mar;104(3):113-9
pubmed: 21357980
Med Decis Making. 2018 Oct;38(7):767-777
pubmed: 30248277
Aust Health Rev. 2010 Aug;34(3):344-51
pubmed: 20797368
Implement Sci. 2016 May 17;11:72
pubmed: 27189233
Phys Ther. 2014 May;94(5):632-43
pubmed: 24505098
Nurs Outlook. 2008 Jul-Aug;56(4):145-151.e2
pubmed: 18675014
Int J Med Educ. 2021 Dec 23;12:259-263
pubmed: 34942601
JAMA. 2012 Feb 15;307(7):671-2
pubmed: 22337677
Implement Sci. 2013 Aug 07;8:87
pubmed: 23924279
J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(4-5):578-604
pubmed: 23115906
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 10;9:7
pubmed: 24410955
BMC Psychol. 2015 Sep 16;3:32
pubmed: 26376626
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Aug 1;35(8):1522-31
pubmed: 27411572
Harv Bus Rev. 2000 May-Jun;78(3):157-66, 217
pubmed: 11183977
Transl Res. 2020 Apr;218:29-42
pubmed: 31759948
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 03;7:28
pubmed: 22472001