Article

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

Implementation Science (Impact Factor: 3.47). 02/2006; 1:23. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-23
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
309 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects half of patients hospitalised after stroke and is often poorly managed. Cochrane systematic reviews have shown some positive impact of conservative interventions (such as bladder training) in reducing UI, but their effectiveness has not been demonstrated with stroke patients. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of a systematic voiding programme (SVP) for the management of UI after stroke. Stroke services were randomised to receive SVP (n = 4), SVP plus supported implementation (SVP+, n = 4), or usual care (UC, n = 4).Feasibility outcomes were participant recruitment and retention. The main effectiveness outcome was presence or absence of UI at six and 12 weeks post-stroke. Additional effectiveness outcomes included were the effect of the intervention on different types of UI, continence status at discharge, UI severity, functional ability, quality of life, and death. It was possible to recruit patients (413; 164 SVP, 125 SVP+, and 124 UC) and participant retention was acceptable (85% and 88% at six and 12 weeks, respectively). There was no suggestion of a beneficial effect on the main outcome at six (SVP versus UC: odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.94; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.37) or 12 weeks (SVP versus UC: OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.93; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.09).No secondary outcomes showed a strong suggestion of clinically meaningful improvement in SVP and/or SVP+ arms relative to UC at six or 12 weeks. However, at 12 weeks both intervention arms had higher estimated odds of continence than UC for patients with urge incontinence. The trial has met feasibility outcomes of participant recruitment and retention. It was not powered to demonstrate effectiveness, but there is some evidence of a potential reduction in the odds of specific types of incontinence. A full trial should now be considered.Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN08609907, date of registration: 7 July 2010.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Few implementation strategies have been empirically tested for their effectiveness in improving uptake of evidence-based treatments or programs. This study compared the effectiveness of an immediate versus delayed enhanced implementation strategy (Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (REP)) for providers at Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient facilities (sites) on improved uptake of an outreach program (Re-Engage) among sites not initially responding to a standard implementation strategy.Methods One mental health provider from each U.S. VA site (N¿=¿158) was initially given a REP-based package and training program in Re-Engage. The Re-Engage program involved giving each site provider a list of patients with serious mental illness who had not been seen at their facility for at least a year, requesting that providers contact these patients, assessing patient clinical status, and where appropriate, facilitating appointments to VA health services. At month 6, sites considered non-responsive (N¿=¿89, total of 3,075 patients), defined as providers updating documentation for less than <80% of patients on their list, were randomized to two adaptive implementation interventions: Enhanced REP (provider coaching; N¿=¿40 sites) for 6 months followed by Standard REP for 6 months; versus continued Standard REP (N¿=¿49 sites) for 6 months followed by 6 months of Enhanced REP for sites still not responding. Outcomes included patient-level Re-Engage implementation and utilization.ResultsPatients from sites that were randomized to receive Enhanced REP immediately compared to Standard REP were more likely to have a completed contact (adjusted OR¿=¿2.13; 95% CI: 1.09¿4.19, P¿=¿0.02). There were no differences in patient-level utilization between Enhanced and Standard REP sites.Conclusions Enhanced REP was associated with greater Re-Engage program uptake (completed contacts) among sites not responding to a standard implementation strategy. Further research is needed to determine whether national implementation of Facilitation results in tangible changes in patient-level outcomes.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN21059161.
    Implementation Science 12/2014; 9(1):778. DOI:10.1186/s13012-014-0163-3 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare organisations is often carried out through relatively short-term projects dependent on limited funding, which raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of implementation and improvement. It is becoming increasingly recognised that the translation of research evidence into practice has to be supported by developing the internal capacity of healthcare organisations to engage with and apply research. This process can be supported by external knowledge mobilisation initiatives represented, for instance, by professional associations, collaborative research partnerships and implementation networks. This conceptual paper uses empirical and theoretical literature on organisational learning and dynamic capabilities to enhance our understanding of intentional capacity building for knowledge mobilisation in healthcare organisations.DiscussionThe discussion is structured around the following three themes: (1) defining and classifying capacity building for knowledge mobilisation; (2) mechanisms of capability development in organisational context; and (3) individual, group and organisational levels of capability development. Capacity building is presented as a practice-based process of developing multiple skills, or capabilities, belonging to different knowledge domains and levels of complexity. It requires an integration of acquisitive learning, through which healthcare organisations acquire knowledge and skills from knowledge mobilisation experts, and experience-based learning, through which healthcare organisations adapt, absorb and modify their knowledge and capabilities through repeated practice. Although the starting point for capability development may be individual-, team- or organisation-centred, facilitation of the transitions between individual, group and organisational levels of learning within healthcare organisations will be needed.SummaryAny initiative designed to build capacity for knowledge mobilisation should consider the subsequent trajectory of newly developed knowledge and skills within the recipient healthcare organisations. The analysis leads to four principles underpinning a practice-based approach to developing multilevel knowledge mobilisation capabilities: (1) moving from `building¿ capacity from scratch towards `developing¿ capacity of healthcare organisations; (2) moving from passive involvement in formal education and training towards active, continuous participation in knowledge mobilisation practices; (3) moving from lower-order, project-specific capabilities towards higher-order, generic capabilities allowing healthcare organisations to adapt to change, absorb new knowledge and innovate; and (4) moving from single-level to multilevel capability development involving transitions between individual, group and organisational learning.
    Implementation Science 11/2014; 9(1):166. DOI:10.1186/s13012-014-0166-0 · 3.47 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
51 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014