Dataset Information

Successful Healthcare Improvements From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence): simple rules to guide practice and research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence translation and improvement research indicate that healthcare contexts are complex systems, characterized by uncertainty and surprise, which often defy orchestrated intervention attempts. This article reflects on the implications of complexity on attempts to translate evidence, and on a newly published framework for Successful Healthcare Improvements From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence).

Discussion

SHIFT-Evidence positions the challenge of evidence translation within the complex and evolving context of healthcare, and recognizes the wider issues practitioners routinely face. It is empirically grounded, and designed to be comprehensive, practically relevant and actionable. SHIFT-evidence is summarized by three principles designed to be intuitive and memorable: 'act scientifically and pragmatically'; 'embrace complexity'; and 'engage and empower'. Common challenges and strategies to overcome them are summarized in 12 'simple rules' that provide actionable guidance.

Conclusion

SHIFT-Evidence provides a practical tool to guide practice and research of evidence translation and improvement within complex dynamic healthcare settings. Implications are that improvement initiatives and research study designs need to take into account the unique initial conditions in each local setting; conduct needs to respond to unpredictable effects and address dependent problems; and evaluation needs to be sensitive to evolving priorities and the emergent range of activities required to achieve improvement.

SUBMITTER: Reed JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6464098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnsuring patients benefit from the latest medical and technical advances remains a major challenge, with rational-linear and reductionist approaches to translating evidence into practice proving inefficient and ineffective. Complexity thinking, which emphasises interconnectedness and unpredictability, offers insights to inform evidence translation theories and strategies. Drawing on detailed insights into complex micro-systems, this research aimed to advance empirical and theoretical understanding of the reality of making and sustaining improvements in complex healthcare systems.MethodsUsing analytical auto-ethnography, including documentary analysis and literature review, we assimilated learning from 5 years of observation of 22 evidence translation projects (UK). We used a grounded theory approach to develop substantive theory and a conceptual framework. Results were interpreted using complexity theory and 'simple rules' were identified reflecting the practical strategies that enhanced project progress.ResultsThe framework for Successful Healthcare Improvement From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence) positions the challenge of evidence translation within the dynamic context of the health system. SHIFT-Evidence is summarised by three strategic principles, namely (1) 'act scientifically and pragmatically' - knowledge of existing evidence needs to be combined with knowledge of the unique initial conditions of a system, and interventions need to adapt as the complex system responds and learning emerges about unpredictable effects; (2) 'embrace complexity' - evidence-based interventions only work if related practices and processes of care within the complex system are functional, and evidence-translation efforts need to identify and address any problems with usual care, recognising that this typically includes a range of interdependent parts of the system; and (3) 'engage and empower' - evidence translation and system navigation requires commitment and insights from staff and patients with experience of the local system, and changes need to align with their motivations and concerns. Twelve associated 'simple rules' are presented to provide actionable guidance to support evidence translation and improvement in complex systems.ConclusionBy recognising how agency, interconnectedness and unpredictability influences evidence translation in complex systems, SHIFT-Evidence provides a tool to guide practice and research. The 'simple rules' have potential to provide a common platform for academics, practitioners, patients and policymakers to collaborate when intervening to achieve improvements in healthcare.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Ixekizumab, a humanized interleukin-17A antibody, has shown efficacy in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), with a greater proportion of ixekizumab-treated patients achieving an ASAS40 (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society 40) endpoint compared to placebo. An ASAS40 response is a high standard that is not routinely used in clinical practice. The goals of this study were (a) to measure improvement in ixekizumab-treated patients in the four ASAS treatment response domains and in other patient-reported outcomes, and (b) to determine how the ASAS response was associated with changes in spinal pain at night, fatigue, sleep, and the Short Form 36-Item Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS). METHODS:The COAST-V and COAST-W trials were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials examining ixekizumab efficacy in patients with AS who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced, respectively. Data for the ASAS treatment response domains and other outcomes were collected through 16 weeks. Comparisons between treatment groups were made using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. To determine how the ASAS response was associated with the changes in spinal pain at night, fatigue, sleep, and SF-36 PCS, comparisons were made between patient groups according to their level of treatment response (ASAS40 vs. ASAS20 vs. ASAS20 nonresponse) using analysis of covariance. RESULTS:Compared with placebo, patients treated with ixekizumab reported significantly greater improvement in the four ASAS treatment response domains and other outcomes (p < 0.05). Results were consistent for bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patients. Compared to ASAS20 nonresponders, patients who achieved ASAS40 reported significantly greater mean changes in spinal pain at night (1.0 vs. 5.1 for bDMARD-naïve; 0.5 vs. 5.4 for TNFi-experienced), fatigue (0.6 vs. 3.8 for bDMARD-naïve; 0.2 vs. 3.9 for TNFi-experienced), sleep quality (1.1 vs. 4.0 for bDMARD-naïve; 0.8 vs. 4.9 for TNFi-experienced), and SF-36 PCS (2.6 vs. 11.6 for bDMARD-naïve; 1.2 vs. 12.6 for TNFi-experienced) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION:Patients with AS who were treated with ixekizumab reported greater improvements in multiple patient-reported outcomes than patients who received placebo. Importantly, achieving ASAS40 was associated with a 2.6-fold to 5.3-fold greater improvement in pain, fatigue, sleep, and quality of life for bDMARD-naïve patients, and a 5.1-fold to 18.5-fold greater improvement for TNFi-experienced patients, compared to ASAS20 nonresponders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02696785 and NCT02696798. FUNDING:Eli Lilly and Company.

Project description:The complexities of modern biomedicine are rapidly increasing. Thus, modeling and simulation have become increasingly important as a strategy to understand and predict the trajectory of pathophysiology, disease genesis, and disease spread in support of clinical and policy decisions. In such cases, inappropriate or ill-placed trust in the model and simulation outcomes may result in negative outcomes, and hence illustrate the need to formalize the execution and communication of modeling and simulation practices. Although verification and validation have been generally accepted as significant components of a model's credibility, they cannot be assumed to equate to a holistic credible practice, which includes activities that can impact comprehension and in-depth examination inherent in the development and reuse of the models. For the past several years, the Committee on Credible Practice of Modeling and Simulation in Healthcare, an interdisciplinary group seeded from a U.S. interagency initiative, has worked to codify best practices. Here, we provide Ten Rules for credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare developed from a comparative analysis by the Committee's multidisciplinary membership, followed by a large stakeholder community survey. These rules establish a unified conceptual framework for modeling and simulation design, implementation, evaluation, dissemination and usage across the modeling and simulation life-cycle. While biomedical science and clinical care domains have somewhat different requirements and expectations for credible practice, our study converged on rules that would be useful across a broad swath of model types. In brief, the rules are: (1) Define context clearly. (2) Use contextually appropriate data. (3) Evaluate within context. (4) List limitations explicitly. (5) Use version control. (6) Document appropriately. (7) Disseminate broadly. (8) Get independent reviews. (9) Test competing implementations. (10) Conform to standards. Although some of these are common sense guidelines, we have found that many are often missed or misconstrued, even by seasoned practitioners. Computational models are already widely used in basic science to generate new biomedical knowledge. As they penetrate clinical care and healthcare policy, contributing to personalized and precision medicine, clinical safety will require established guidelines for the credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence. METHODS: We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures: • reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these • clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing • holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing • attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dying RESULTS: We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our 'Review of Future Talk'. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers.