Cited by 148Health Policy Implementation ScienceInnovations in Medical EducationHealthcare Quality and Management

The clinical sustainability assessment tool: measuring organizational capacity to promote sustainability in healthcare

Open access
Malone, Sara, Prewitt, Kim, Hackett, Rachel, Lin, John C., McKay, Virginia, Walsh-Bailey, Callie, Luke, Douglas A.·2021·Implementation Science Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few validated assessment tools are available to increase understanding and measure factors associated with sustainment of clinical practices, an increasingly recognized need among clinicians. We describe the development of the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT), designed to assess factors that contribute to sustainable practices in clinical settings. METHODS: Sixty-four participants from clinical and research fields participated in concept mapping and were recruited to brainstorm factors that lead to sustained clinical practices. Once repeated factors were removed, participants sorted items based on similarity and rated them by importance and feasibility. Using concept mapping analyses, items were grouped into meaningful domains to develop an initial tool. We then recruited pilot sites and early adopters, for a total of 286 practicing clinicians, to pilot and evaluate the tool. Individuals were recruited from clinical settings across pediatric and adult medical and surgical subspecialties. The data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test hypothesized subscale structure in the instrument. We used root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) to assess fit and thus the ability of CSAT to measure the identified domains. RESULTS: The concept mapping produced sorted statements that were edited into items that could be responded to, resulting in the creation of a tool with seven determinant domains and 47 items. The pilot and CFA testing resulted in a final CSAT instrument made up 35 items, five per domain. CFA results demonstrated very good fit of the seven domain structure of the CSAT (RMSEA = 0.049; SRMR = 0.049). Usability testing indicated the CSAT is brief, easy to use, easy to learn, and does not require extensive training. Additionally, the measure scored highly (18/20) on the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The seven final CSAT domains were engaged staff and leadership, engaged stakeholders, organizational readiness, workflow integration, implementation and training, monitoring and evaluation, and outcomes and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The CSAT is a new reliable assessment tool which allows for greater practical and scientific understanding of contextual factors that enable sustainable clinical practices over time.

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/s43058-021-00181-2

Cites

55 of 55 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?

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: 3

  1. [14]Luke D, Malone, S., Prewitt, K., Hackett, R., Lin, J., editor The clinical sustainability assessment tool (CSAT): Assessing sustainability in clinical medicine settings. 11th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health; December 2018; Washington, D.C.
  2. [15]Malone S, Prewitt, K., Luke, DA, editor Assessing clinical sustainability: a new, user-friendly tool for evaluating real-world practices. American Evaluation Association’s annual conference; 2019; Minneapolis, MN.
  3. [26]Malone S, Prewitt K, Lin J, Luke D, editors. Using Concept Mapping for Measure Development: Examples from Sustainability. Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health; 2018; Washington, DC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malone, S., Prewitt, K., Hackett, R., Lin, J. C., McKay, V., Walsh-Bailey, C., & Luke, D. A.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Malone, Sara
Venue
Implementation Science Communications
Published
2021-07-17
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
77-77
ISSN
2662-2211 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3123192473
Cited by
148
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 3
FWCI
23.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA244431)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002345)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
sustainability in healthcare, organizational capacity, scale development, concept mapping, instrument validation, employee engagement, leadership, stakeholder engagement, organizational readiness, workflow integration, monitoring and evaluation

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