Gillian Parker1, Monika Kastner2,3, Karen Born2, Whitney Berta2. 1. Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. gillian.parker@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. 3. North York General Hospital, Centre for Research and Innovation, 4001 Leslie Street, Toronto, Ontario, M2K 1E1, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is general scarcity of research on key elements of implementation processes and the factors which impact implementation success. Implementation of healthcare interventions is a complex process. Tools to support implementation can facilitate this process and improve effectiveness of the interventions and clinical outcomes. Understanding the impact of implementation support tools is a critical aspect of this process. The objective of this study was to solicit knowledge and agreement from relevant implementation science and knowledge translation healthcare experts in order to develop a process model of key elements in the implementation process. METHODS: A two round, modified Delphi study involving international experts in knowledge translation and implementation (researchers, scientists, professors, decision-makers) was conducted. Participants rated and commented on all aspects of the process model, including the organization, content, scope, and structure. Delphi questions rated at 75% agreement or lower were reviewed and revised. Qualitative comments supported the restructuring and refinement. A second-round survey followed the same process as Round 1. RESULTS: Fifty-four experts participated in Round 1, and 32 experts participated in Round 2. Twelve percent (n = 6) of the Round 1 questions did not reach agreement. Key themes for revision and refinement were: stakeholder engagement throughout the process, iterative nature of the implementation process; importance of context; and importance of using guiding theories or frameworks. The process model was revised and refined based on the quantitative and qualitative data and reassessed by the experts in Round 2. Agreement was achieved on all items in Round 2 and the Delphi concluded. Additional feedback was obtained regarding terminology, target users and definition of the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of agreement were attained for all sub-domains, elements, and sub-elements of the Implementation Process Model. This model will be used to develop an Implementation Support Tool to be used by healthcare providers to facilitate effective implementation and improved clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: There is general scarcity of research on key elements of implementation processes and the factors which impact implementation success. Implementation of healthcare interventions is a complex process. Tools to support implementation can facilitate this process and improve effectiveness of the interventions and clinical outcomes. Understanding the impact of implementation support tools is a critical aspect of this process. The objective of this study was to solicit knowledge and agreement from relevant implementation science and knowledge translation healthcare experts in order to develop a process model of key elements in the implementation process. METHODS: A two round, modified Delphi study involving international experts in knowledge translation and implementation (researchers, scientists, professors, decision-makers) was conducted. Participants rated and commented on all aspects of the process model, including the organization, content, scope, and structure. Delphi questions rated at 75% agreement or lower were reviewed and revised. Qualitative comments supported the restructuring and refinement. A second-round survey followed the same process as Round 1. RESULTS: Fifty-four experts participated in Round 1, and 32 experts participated in Round 2. Twelve percent (n = 6) of the Round 1 questions did not reach agreement. Key themes for revision and refinement were: stakeholder engagement throughout the process, iterative nature of the implementation process; importance of context; and importance of using guiding theories or frameworks. The process model was revised and refined based on the quantitative and qualitative data and reassessed by the experts in Round 2. Agreement was achieved on all items in Round 2 and the Delphi concluded. Additional feedback was obtained regarding terminology, target users and definition of the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of agreement were attained for all sub-domains, elements, and sub-elements of the Implementation Process Model. This model will be used to develop an Implementation Support Tool to be used by healthcare providers to facilitate effective implementation and improved clinical outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Delphi; Evidence-based; Health services research; Implementation; Model; Process
Authors: Thomas W Concannon; Paul Meissner; Jo Anne Grunbaum; Newell McElwee; Jeanne-Marie Guise; John Santa; Patrick H Conway; Denise Daudelin; Elaine H Morrato; Laurel K Leslie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ivan R Diamond; Robert C Grant; Brian M Feldman; Paul B Pencharz; Simon C Ling; Aideen M Moore; Paul W Wales Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Patricia A Deverka; Danielle C Lavallee; Priyanka J Desai; Laura C Esmail; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra; Sean R Tunis Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Sarah Barger; Sean D Sullivan; Ari Bell-Brown; Brad Bott; Anne Marie Ciccarella; John Golenski; Mark Gorman; Judy Johnson; Karma Kreizenbeck; Florence Kurttila; Ginny Mason; Jamie Myers; Carole Seigel; James L Wade; Guneet Walia; Kate Watabayashi; Gary H Lyman; Scott D Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.615