The implementation checklist: A pragmatic instrument for accelerating research-to-implementation cycles

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Learning Health Systems Pub Date : 2023-01-27 DOI:10.1002/lrh2.10359
Stephanie Prausnitz, Andrea Altschuler, Lisa J. Herrinton, Andrew L. Avins, Douglas A. Corley
{"title":"The implementation checklist: A pragmatic instrument for accelerating research-to-implementation cycles","authors":"Stephanie Prausnitz,&nbsp;Andrea Altschuler,&nbsp;Lisa J. Herrinton,&nbsp;Andrew L. Avins,&nbsp;Douglas A. Corley","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.10359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Learning health systems require rapid-cycle research and nimble implementation processes to maximize innovation across disparate specialties and operations. Existing detailed research-to-implementation frameworks require extensive time commitments and can be overwhelming for physician-researchers with clinical and operational responsibilities, inhibiting their widespread adoption. The creation of a short, pragmatic checklist to inform implementation processes may substantially improve uptake and implementation efficiency across a variety of health systems.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review of existing implementation frameworks to identify core concepts. Utilizing comprehensive stakeholder engagement with 25 operational leaders, embedded physician-researchers, and delivery scientists, concepts were iteratively integrated to create and implement a final concise instrument.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review identified 894 publications describing implementation frameworks, which included 15 systematic reviews. Among these, domains were extracted from three commonly utilized instruments: the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Iterative testing and stakeholder engagement revision of a four-page draft implementation document with five domains resulted in a concise, one-page implementation planning instrument to be used at project outset and periodically throughout project implementation planning. The instrument addresses end-user feasibility concerns while retaining the main goals of more complex tools. This instrument was then systematically integrated into projects within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Delivery Science and Applied Research program to address stakeholder engagement, efficiency, project planning, and operational implementation of study results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>A streamlined one-page implementation planning instrument, incorporating core concepts of existing frameworks, provides a pragmatic, robust framework for evidence-based healthcare innovation cycles that is being broadly implemented within a learning health system. These streamlined processes could inform other settings needing a best practice rapid-cycle research-to-implementation tool for large numbers of diverse projects.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"7 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c3/86/LRH2-7-e10359.PMC10336492.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lrh2.10359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Learning health systems require rapid-cycle research and nimble implementation processes to maximize innovation across disparate specialties and operations. Existing detailed research-to-implementation frameworks require extensive time commitments and can be overwhelming for physician-researchers with clinical and operational responsibilities, inhibiting their widespread adoption. The creation of a short, pragmatic checklist to inform implementation processes may substantially improve uptake and implementation efficiency across a variety of health systems.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of existing implementation frameworks to identify core concepts. Utilizing comprehensive stakeholder engagement with 25 operational leaders, embedded physician-researchers, and delivery scientists, concepts were iteratively integrated to create and implement a final concise instrument.

Results

A systematic review identified 894 publications describing implementation frameworks, which included 15 systematic reviews. Among these, domains were extracted from three commonly utilized instruments: the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Iterative testing and stakeholder engagement revision of a four-page draft implementation document with five domains resulted in a concise, one-page implementation planning instrument to be used at project outset and periodically throughout project implementation planning. The instrument addresses end-user feasibility concerns while retaining the main goals of more complex tools. This instrument was then systematically integrated into projects within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Delivery Science and Applied Research program to address stakeholder engagement, efficiency, project planning, and operational implementation of study results.

Conclusion

A streamlined one-page implementation planning instrument, incorporating core concepts of existing frameworks, provides a pragmatic, robust framework for evidence-based healthcare innovation cycles that is being broadly implemented within a learning health system. These streamlined processes could inform other settings needing a best practice rapid-cycle research-to-implementation tool for large numbers of diverse projects.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实施清单:加速从研究到实施周期的实用工具
学习型卫生系统需要快速的周期研究和灵活的实施过程,以最大限度地实现跨不同专业和业务的创新。现有的详细的从研究到实施的框架需要大量的时间投入,对于承担临床和操作责任的医生研究人员来说,这可能是压倒性的,阻碍了它们的广泛采用。创建一份简短、实用的清单,为实施过程提供信息,可能会大大提高各种卫生系统的吸收和实施效率。方法我们对现有的实施框架进行了系统的回顾,以确定核心概念。利用利益相关者与25位业务领导者、嵌入式医生研究人员和交付科学家的全面参与,概念被迭代地集成,以创建和实施最终的简明工具。结果系统评价确定了894篇描述实施框架的出版物,其中包括15篇系统评价。其中,领域是从三个常用的工具中提取的:质量实施框架(QIF)、实施研究统一框架(CFIR)和范围、有效性、采用、实施和维护(RE-AIM)框架。对包含五个领域的四页实施文件草案进行迭代测试和涉众参与修订,形成了一个简明的、一页的实施计划工具,在项目开始时使用,并在整个项目实施计划期间定期使用。该工具解决了最终用户的可行性问题,同时保留了更复杂工具的主要目标。然后,该工具被系统地集成到Kaiser Permanente北加州交付科学和应用研究计划的项目中,以解决利益相关者的参与、效率、项目规划和研究结果的可操作性实施。精简的一页实施规划工具,结合了现有框架的核心概念,为在学习型卫生系统中广泛实施的循证卫生保健创新周期提供了一个务实、稳健的框架。这些简化的过程可以为其他需要最佳实践的环境提供信息,为大量不同的项目提供快速循环的研究到实施工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Learning Health Systems
Learning Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.60%
发文量
55
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Provision of Massive Open Online Courses in Just-in-Time Modalities: Experience Report of the OpenWHO.org Platform's 7 Years of Learning Response to Health Emergencies A Learning Health System Approach to Developing a Perinatal Safety Framework and Guide to Reduce Disparities in Maternal Harm Embedding Systems Engineering Leadership in Learning Health Systems: The Case for a Chief Systems Engineer in Every Hospital Integrating Knowledge Translation: A Swiss Approach to Bridging Research and Health System Improvement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1