CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealthcare Quality and ManagementHealth Sciences Research and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement

Open access
Doyle, Cathal, Howe, Cathy, Woodcock, Thomas, Myron, Rowan, Phekoo, Karen, McNicholas, Chris, Saffer, Jessica, Bell, Derek·2013·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-127PMC PMC3827618
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL). Data from project teams' responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as 'engaged,' 'partially engaged' and 'non-engaged.' Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a 'diversity of opinion' measure was derived to assess response variance over time. Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as 'engaged,' six 'partially engaged,' and seven as 'non-engaged.' Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness. The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams' views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-8-127

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Illustration of scoring mechanism.
Figure 1 Illustration of scoring mechanism.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Trends in domain scores for ‘engaged’ teams.
Figure 2 Trends in domain scores for ‘engaged’ teams.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Scoring trends for ‘partly engaged’ teams.
Figure 3 Scoring trends for ‘partly engaged’ teams.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 ‘Diversity of opinion’ analysis. At each point in time, the distribution shows the frequency of occurrence of each diversity score from 0 (full agreement) to 3 (maximum diversity of opinion). Distributions that are positively skewed (higher frequencies in low scores) indicate less diversity of opinion than negatively skewed distributions (higher frequencies in high scores).
Figure 4 ‘Diversity of opinion’ analysis. At each point in time, the distribution shows the frequency of occurrence of each diversity score from 0 (full agreement) to 3 (maximum diversity of opinion). Distributions that are positively skewed (higher frequencies in low scores) indicate less diversity of opinion than negatively skewed distributions (higher frequencies in high scores).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Feedback from team members on SM.
Figure 5 Feedback from team members on SM.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Department of Health: Innovation, health and wealth: accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS department of health. 2011, Department of Health
  2. Smith R: Cuts being made to frontline NHS services survey reveals. 2010, London: The Daily Telegraph

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–167 of 167

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Doyle, C., Howe, C., Woodcock, T., Myron, R., Phekoo, K., McNicholas, C., Saffer, J., & Bell, D.
Affiliations
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Doyle, Cathal
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-10-26
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
127-127
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1748-5908-8-127
PMC
PMC3827618
OpenAlex
W2156517163
Cited by
166
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5
FWCI
13.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWL Repository (University of West London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-KMF-2012-01-08)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
evidence-based practice implementation, team engagement, sustainability drivers, formative assessment, opinion diversity, capacity building, healthcare quality improvement
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, United Kingdom, Hospitals, Public, Patient Care Team, Quality Assurance, Health Care, State Medicine, Program Evaluation, Models, Organizational, Evidence-Based Medicine, Quality Improvement

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