Dataset Information

The Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool: measuring organizational capacity to promote sustainability in healthcare.

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.

SUBMITTER: Malone S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8285819 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNot all primary care clinics are prepared to implement care coordination services for chronic conditions, such as diabetes. Understanding true capacity to coordinate care is an important first-step toward establishing effective and efficient care coordination. Yet, we could identify no diabetes-specific instruments to systematically assess readiness and/or status of primary care clinics to engage in diabetes care coordination.ObjectiveThis report describes the development and initial validation of the Diabetes Care Coordination Readiness Assessment (DCCRA), which is intended to measure primary care clinic readiness to coordinate care for adult patients with diabetes.DesignThe instrument was developed through iterative item generation within a framework of five domains of care coordination: Organizational Capacity, Care Coordination, Clinical Management, Quality Improvement, and Technical Infrastructure.ParticipantsValidation data was collected on 39 primary care clinics.Main measuresContent validity, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the 49-item instrument were assessed.Key resultsInter-rater agreement indices per item ranged from 0.50 to 1.0. Cronbach's alpha of the entire instrument was 0.964, and for the five domain scales ranged from 0.688 to 0.961. Clinics with existing care coordinators were rated as more ready to support care coordination than clinics without care coordinators for the entire DCCRA and for each domain, supporting construct validity.ConclusionsAs providers increasingly attempt to adopt patient-centered approaches, introduction of the DCCRA is timely and appropriate for assisting clinics with identifying gaps in provision of care coordination services. The DCCRA's strengths include promising psychometric properties. A valid measure of diabetes care coordination readiness should be useful in diabetes program evaluation, assistance with quality improvement initiatives, and measurement of patient-centered care in research.

Project description:ObjectivesA key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers' individual capacities to conduct research.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies.Data sources11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened.Eligibility criteriaWe included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis.ResultsThe titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the 'Research Spider' tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research.ConclusionsCapacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies.Prospero registration numberCRD42019122310.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation science comprises a large set of theories suggesting interacting factors at different organisational levels. Development of literature syntheses and frameworks for implementation have contributed to comprehensive descriptions of implementation. However, corresponding instruments for measuring these comprehensive descriptions are currently lacking. The present study aimed to develop an instrument measuring care providers' perceptions of an implementation effort, and to explore the instrument's psychometric properties.MethodsBased on existing implementation literature, a questionnaire was designed with items on individual and team factors and on stages of change in an implementation process. The instrument was tested in a Norwegian study on implementation of evidence based practices for psychosis. Item analysis, factor structure, and internal consistency at baseline were examined.ResultsThe 27-item Implementation Process Assessment Tool (IPAT) revealed large variation between mean score of the items. The total scale scores were widely dispersed across respondents. Internal consistency for the total scale was high (Cronbach's alpha: .962), and all but one item contributed positively to the construct. The results indicated four underlying constructs: individual stages for behavioural change, individual activities and perceived support, collective readiness and support, and individual perceptions of the intervention.ConclusionsThe IPAT appears to be a feasible instrument for investigating the implementation process from the perspective of those making the change. It can enable examination of the relative importance of factors thought to be essential for implementation outcomes. It may also provide ongoing feedback for leaders tailoring support for teams to improve implementation. However, further research is needed to detect the instrument's properties later in the implementation process and in different contexts.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov code NCT03271242 (retrospective registered September 5, 2017).

Project description:While increasing attention is placed on using evidence-based decision making (EBDM) to improve public health, there is little research assessing the current EBDM capacity of the public health workforce. Public health agencies serve a wide range of populations with varying levels of resources. Our survey tool allows an individual agency to collect data that reflects its unique workforce.Health department leaders and academic researchers collaboratively developed and conducted cross-sectional surveys in Kansas and Mississippi (USA) to assess EBDM capacity. Surveys were delivered to state- and local-level practitioners and community partners working in chronic disease control and prevention. The core component of the surveys was adopted from a previously tested instrument and measured gaps (importance versus availability) in competencies for EBDM in chronic disease. Other survey questions addressed expectations and incentives for using EBDM, self-efficacy in three EBDM skills, and estimates of EBDM within the agency.In both states, participants identified communication with policymakers, use of economic evaluation, and translation of research to practice as top competency gaps. Self-efficacy in developing evidence-based chronic disease control programs was lower than in finding or using data. Public health practitioners estimated that approximately two-thirds of programs in their agency were evidence-based. Mississippi participants indicated that health department leaders' expectations for the use of EBDM was approximately twice that of co-workers' expectations and that the use of EBDM could be increased with training and leadership prioritization.The assessment of EBDM capacity in Kansas and Mississippi built upon previous nationwide findings to identify top gaps in core competencies for EBDM in chronic disease and to estimate a percentage of programs in U.S. health departments that are evidence-based. The survey can serve as a valuable tool for other health departments and non-governmental organizations to assess EBDM capacity within their own workforce and to assist in the identification of approaches that will enhance the uptake of EBDM processes in public health programming and policymaking. Localized survey findings can provide direction for focusing workforce training programs and can indicate the types of incentives and policies that could affect the culture of EBDM in the workplace.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improvement initiatives offer a valuable mechanism for delivering and testing innovations in healthcare settings. Many of these initiatives deliver meaningful and necessary changes to patient care and outcomes. However, many improvement initiatives fail to sustain to a point where their full benefits can be realised. This has led many researchers and healthcare practitioners to develop frameworks, models and tools to support and monitor sustainability. This work aimed to identify what approaches are available to assess and influence sustainability in healthcare and to describe the different perspectives, applications and constructs within these approaches to guide their future use. METHODS:A systematic review was carried out following PRISMA guidelines to identify publications that reported approaches to support or influence sustainability in healthcare. Eligibility criteria were defined through an iterative process in which two reviewers independently assessed 20% of articles to test the objectivity of the selection criteria. Data were extracted from the identified articles, and a template analysis was undertaken to identify and assess the sustainability constructs within each reported approach. RESULTS:The search strategy identified 1748 publications with 227 articles retrieved in full text for full documentary analysis. In total, 62 publications identifying a sustainability approach were included in this review (32 frameworks, 16 models, 8 tools, 4 strategies, 1 checklist and 1 process). Constructs across approaches were compared and 40 individual constructs for sustainability were found. Comparison across approaches demonstrated consistent constructs were seen regardless of proposed interventions, setting or level of application with 6 constructs included in 75% of the approaches. Although similarities were found, no approaches contained the same combination of the constructs nor did any single approach capture all identified constructs. From these results, a consolidated framework for sustainability constructs in healthcare was developed. CONCLUSIONS:Choosing a sustainability method can pose a challenge because of the diverse approaches reported in the literature. This review provides a valuable resource to researchers, healthcare professionals and improvement practitioners by providing a summary of available sustainability approaches and their characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD42016040081 in June 2016.