Cited by 44Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationHealthcare Quality and Management

Implementation and sustainment of diverse practices in a large integrated health system: a mixed methods study

Open access
Nevedal, Andrea L., Reardon, Caitlin M., Jackson, George L., Cutrona, Sarah L., White, Brandolyn, Gifford, Allen L., Orvek, Elizabeth, DeLaughter, Kathryn +5 more·2020·Implementation Science Communications

Abstract

Background: One goal of health systems seeking to evolve into learning health systems is to accelerate the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). As part of this evolution, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Innovation Ecosystem, which includes the Diffusion of Excellence (DoE), a program that identifies and diffuses Gold Status Practices (GSPs) across facilities. The DoE hosts an annual “Shark Tank” competition in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a GSP with 6 months of implementation support. Over 750 diverse practices were submitted in cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank; 23 were designated GSPs and were implemented in 31 VA networks or facilities. As part of a national evaluation of the DoE, we identified factors contributing to GSP implementation and sustainment. Methods: Our sequential mixed methods evaluation of cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank included semi-structured interviews with at least one representative from 30/31 implementing teams (N= 78/105 people invited) and survey responses from 29/31 teams (N= 39/47 invited). Interviews focused on factors influencing implementation and future sustainment. Surveys focused on sustainment 1.5–2 years after implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed data collection and directed content analysis. Ordinal scales were developed inductively to rank implementation and sustainment outcomes. Results: Over 50% of teams (17/30) successfully implemented their GSP within the 6-month implementation period. Despite extensive implementation support, significant barriers related to centralized decision-making, staffing, and resources led to partial (n= 6) or no (n= 7) implementation for the remaining teams. While 12/17 initially successful implementation teams reported sustained use of their GSP, over half of the initially unsuccessful teams (n= 7/13) also reported sustained GSP use 1.5 years after the initial implementation period. When asked at 6 months, 18/27 teams with complete data accurately anticipated their future sustainability based on reported sustainment an average of 1.5 years later. Conclusions: Most teams implemented within 6 months and/or sustained their GSP 1.5 years later. High levels of implementation and sustainment across diverse practices and teams suggest that VHA’s DoE is a successful large-scale model of diffusion. Team predictions about sustainability after the first 6 months of implementation provide a promising early assessment and point of intervention to increase 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 · 10.1186/s43058-020-00053-1

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Empirical research shows the presence of internal and external champions, supporters, and advocates influences program sustainment.

    “Empirical research also shows that the presence of internal and external champions, supporters, and advocates influences program sustainment [26, 51–53]”

    From Using qualitative comparative analysis to uncover multiple pathways to program sustainment: implications for community-based youth substance misuse prevention (2022) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Discussion identifies engaging key stakeholders as important to sustainment, and the Results report that some teams did not sustain their practices after losing necessary staff. But the paper describes external change agents’ support during initial implementation, not as an influence on sustainment; it says implementation support providers were not involved during the sustainment phase. It therefore does not establish the claim for both internal and external champions, supporters, and advocates. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Empirical research shows organizational capacity, such as having adequate resources and staff to deliver the program, is integral to a program's success and continued delivery.

    “and that organizational capacity, such as having adequate resources and staff to deliver the program [19, 24, 31, 53] is integral to a program’s success and continued delivery.”

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. [23]Creswell J, Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 1st ed: Sage Publications, Inc; 2007.
  2. [33]Miles M, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed: Sage Publications, Inc; 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nevedal, A. L., Reardon, C. M., Jackson, G. L., Cutrona, S. L., White, B., Gifford, A. L., Orvek, E., DeLaughter, K., White, L., King, H. A., Henderson, B., Vega, R., & Damschroder, L.
Affiliations
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Durham VA Health Care System (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Nevedal, Andrea L.
Venue
Implementation Science Communications
Published
2020-07-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
61-61
ISSN
2662-2211 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3038361036
Cited by
44
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (PEC-17-002)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
evidence-based practice implementation, learning health systems, Veterans Health Administration, implementation barriers, implementation facilitators, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, implementation support, centralized decision-making, health system innovation, diffusion of innovations, integrated health system, implementation teams

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