Cited by 60Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealthcare Quality and ManagementOrganizational Change and Leadership

Measuring Sustainability Within the Veterans Administration Mental Health System Redesign Initiative

Open access
Ford, James H., Krahn, Dean, Wise, Meg, Oliver, Karen Anderson·2011·Quality Management in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine how attributes affecting sustainability differ across Veterans Health Administration organizational components and by staff characteristics. SUBJECTS: Surveys of 870 change team members and 50 staff interviews within the Veterans Affairs' Mental Health System Redesign initiative. METHODS: A 1-way ANOVA with a Tukey post hoc test examined differences in sustainability by Veteran Integrated Service Networks, job classification, and tenure from staff survey data of the Sustainability Index. Qualitative interviews used an iterative process to identify "a priori" and "in vivo" themes. A simple stepwise linear regression explored predictors of sustainability. RESULTS: Sustainability differed across Veteran Integrated Service Networks and staff tenure. Job classification differences existed for the following: (1) benefits and credibility of the change and (2) staff involvement and attitudes toward change. Sustainability barriers were staff and institutional resistance and nonsupportive leadership. Facilitators were commitment to veterans, strong leadership, and use of quality improvement tools. Sustainability predictors were outcomes tracking, regular reporting, and use of Plan, Do, Study, Adjust cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Creating homogeneous implementation and sustainability processes across a national health system is difficult. Despite the Veterans Affairs' best evidence-based implementation efforts, there was significant variance. Locally tailored interventions might better support sustainability than "one-size-fits-all" approaches. Further research is needed to understand how participation in a quality improvement collaborative affects sustainability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/qmh.0b013e3182314b20

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Leaders in agencies that successfully sustained A-CHESS took steps to ensure that their strategic decisions and plans for A-CHESS created a coherent vision for organizational transformation; empowered employees to participate in the change process, including providing training; and allocated resources, change policies, procedures, and job descriptions.

    “These leaders took steps to ensure that their strategic decisions and plans for A-CHESS created a coherent vision for organizational transformation; empowered employees to participate in the change process, including providing training; and allocated resources, change policies, procedures, and job descriptions [31,41,42].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [25]Kotter JP Leading Change 1996 Boston, MA Harvard Business Press
  2. [42]Davies B Tremblay D Edwards N Bick D Graham ID Sustaining evidence based practice systems and measuring the impacts Evaluating the Impact of Implementing Evidence Based Practice 2010 Oxford Wiley-Blackwell 165 188

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ford, J. H., Krahn, D., Wise, M., & Oliver, K. A.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Ford, James H.
Venue
Quality Management in Health Care
Published
2011-10
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
263-279
ISSN
1063-8628 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050871368
Cited by
60
References
51
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality Management in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA020832)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
Keywords
sustainability, implementation, Veterans Health Administration, organizational change, staff characteristics, occupational classification, resistance to change, leadership, quality improvement, veterans' mental health services
MeSH terms
Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Occupations, Time Factors, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review