Search results

At the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the absence of pharmaceutical agents meant that policy institutions had to intervene by providing nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). To satisfy this need, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued policy guidelines, such as NPIs, and the government of Pakistan released its own policy document that included social distancing (SD) as a containment measure. This study explores the policy actors and their role in implementing SD as an NPI in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study adopted the constructs of Normalization Process Theory (NPT) to explore the implementation of SD as a complex and novel healthcare intervention under a qualitative study design. Data were collected through document analysis and interviews, and analysed under framework analysis protocols.

The intervention actors (IAs), including healthcare providers, district management agents, and staff from other departments, were active in implementation in the local context. It was observed that healthcare providers integrated SD into their professional lives through a higher level of collective action and reflexive monitoring. However, the results suggest that more coherence and cognitive participation are required for integration.

This novel research offers original and exclusive scenario narratives that satisfy the recent calls of the neo-implementation paradigm, and provides suggestions for managing the implementation impediments during the pandemic. The paper fills the implementation literature gap by exploring the normalisation process and designing a contextual framework for developing countries to implement guidelines for pandemics and healthcare crises.

The purpose of this paper is to explore what happens when changes to clinical practice are proposed and introduced in healthcare organisations. The authors use the implementation of Treatment Escalation Plans to explore the dynamics shaping the translational journey of a complex intervention from research into the everyday context of real-world healthcare settings.

A qualitative instrumental collective case study design was used. Data were gathered using qualitative interviews (n = 36) and observations (n = 46) in three English acute hospital trusts. Normalisation process theory provided the theoretical lens and informed data collection and analysis.

While each organisation faced the same translational problem, there was variation between settings regarding adoption and implementation. Successful change was dependent on participants' ability to manage and shape contexts and the work this involved was reliant on individual capacity to create a new, receptive context for change. Managing contexts to facilitate the move from research into clinical practice was a complex interactive and iterative process.

The paper advocates a move away from contextual factors influencing change and adoption, to contextual patterns and processes that accommodate different elements of whole systems and the work required to manage and shape them.

The paper addresses important and timely issues of change in healthcare, particularly for new regulatory and service-oriented processes and practices. Insights and explanations of variations in implementation are revealed which could contribute to conceptual generalisation of context and implementation.

Intervention evaluations have not always accounted for long-term implementation of interventions. The purpose of this paper is to explore implementation of a primary care intervention during the lifespan of the trial and beyond.

Eight general practices participated in the trial (four control and four intervention). In-depth interviews (with nine GPs and four practices nurses who delivered the intervention) and observation methods were employed. Thematic analysis was utilized and Normalization Process Theory (NPT) constructs were compared with emergent themes.

Macro-level policy imperatives shaped practice priorities which resulted in the “whole system” new intervention not being perceived to be sustainable. Continued routinization of the intervention into usual care beyond the lifespan of the funded study was dependent on individualized monitoring and taking forward tacit knowledge.

The authors discuss the implications of these findings for sociological theories of implementation and understanding outcomes of research led complex interventions.

The study describes the complex interplay between macro processes and individual situated practices and contributes to understanding if, how, and why interventions are sustained beyond initial “research push”. The value of the study lies in describing the conditions and potential consequences of long-term implementation, which might be translated to other contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce translational mobilization theory (TMT) and explore its application for healthcare quality improvement purposes.

TMT is a generic sociological theory that explains how projects of collective action are progressed in complex organizational contexts. This paper introduces TMT, outlines its ontological assumptions and core components, and explores its potential value for quality improvement using rescue trajectories as an illustrative case.

TMT has value for understanding coordination and collaboration in healthcare. Inviting a radical reconceptualization of healthcare organization, its potential applications include: mapping healthcare processes, understanding the role of artifacts in healthcare work, analyzing the relationship between content, context and implementation, program theory development and providing a comparative framework for supporting cross-sector learning.

Poor coordination and collaboration are well-recognized weaknesses in modern healthcare systems and represent important risks to quality and safety. While the organization and delivery of healthcare has been widely studied, and there is an extensive literature on team and inter-professional working, we lack readily accessible theoretical frameworks for analyzing collaborative work practices. TMT addresses this gap in understanding.

Many countries have a renewed focus on health inequalities since COVID-19. In England, integrated care systems (ICSs), formed in 2022 to promote integration, are required to reduce health inequalities. Integration is supported by population health management (PHM) which links data across health and care organisations to inform service delivery. It is not well-understood how PHM can help ICSs reduce health inequalities. This paper describes development of a programme theory to advance this understanding.

This study was conducted as a mixed-methods process evaluation in a local ICS using PHM. The study used Framework to analyse interviews with health and care professionals about a PHM tool, the COVID-19 vaccination uptake Dashboard. Quantitative data on staff Dashboard usage were analysed descriptively. To develop a wider programme theory, local findings were discussed with national PHM stakeholders.

ICS staff used PHM in heterogeneous ways to influence programme delivery and reduce inequalities in vaccine uptake. PHM data was most influential where it highlighted action was needed for “targetable” populations. PHM is more likely to influence decisions on reducing inequalities where data are trusted and valued, data platforms are underpinned by positive inter-organisational relationships and where the health inequality is a shared priority.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a shift toward use of digital health platforms and integrated working across ICSs. This paper used an evaluation of integrated data to reduce inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine delivery to propose a novel programme theory for how integrated data can support ICS staff to tackle health inequalities.

The purpose of this paper is to better understand how and why adoption and implementation of healthcare IT innovations occur. The authors examine two IT applications, computerised physician order entry (CPOE) and picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) at the meso and micro levels, within the context of the National Programme for IT in the English National Health Service (NHS).

To analyse these multi-level dynamics, the authors blend Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory (DoIT) with Webster’s sociological critique of technological innovation in medicine and healthcare systems to illuminate a wider range of interacting factors. Qualitative data collected between 2004 and 2006 uses semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 72 stakeholders across four English NHS hospital trusts.

Overall, PACS was more successfully implemented (fully or partially in three out of four trusts) than CPOE (implemented in one trust only). Factors such as perceived benefit to users and attributes of the application – in particular speed, ease of use, reliability and flexibility and levels of readiness – were highly relevant but their influence was modulated through interaction with complex structural and relational issues.

Results reveal that combining contextual system level theories with DoIT increases understanding of real-life processes underpinning implementation of IT innovations within healthcare. They also highlight important drivers affecting success of implementation, including socio-political factors, the social body of practice and degree of “co-construction” between designers and end-users.

The originality of the study partly rests on its methodological innovativeness and its value on critical insights afforded into understanding complex IT implementation programmes.

The purpose of this paper is to argue for an improved conceptualisation of health service research, using Stengers' (2018) metaphor of “slow science” as a critical yardstick.

The paper is structured in three parts. It first reviews the field of health services research and the approaches that dominate it. It then considers the healthcare research approaches whose principles and methodologies are more aligned with “slow science” before presenting a description of a “slow science” project in which the authors are currently engaged.

Current approaches to health service research struggle to offer adequate resources for resolving frontline complexity, principally because they set more store by knowledge generalisation, disciplinary continuity and integrity and the consolidation of expertise, than by engaging with frontline complexity on its terms, negotiating issues with frontline staff and patients on their terms and framing findings and solutions in ways that key in to the in situ dynamics and complexities that define health service delivery.

There is a need to engage in a paradigm shift that engages health services as co-researchers, prioritising practical change and local involvement over knowledge production. Economics is a research field where the products are of natural appeal to powerful health service managers. A “slow science” approach adopted by the embedded Economist Program with its emphasis on pre-implementation, knowledge mobilisation and parallel site capacity development sets out how research can be flexibly produced to improve health services.

The study aimed to understand the significance of how employee personhood and the act of speaking up is shaped by factors such as employees' professional status, length of employment within their hospital sites, age, gender and their ongoing exposure to unprofessional behaviours.

Responses to a survey by 4,851 staff across seven sites within a hospital network in Australia were analysed to interrogate whether speaking up by hospital employees is influenced by employees' symbolic capital and situated subjecthood (SS). The authors utilised a Bourdieusian lens to interrogate the relationship between the symbolic capital afforded to employees as a function of their professional, personal and psycho-social resources and their self-reported capacity to speak up.

The findings indicate that employee speaking up behaviours appear to be influenced profoundly by whether they feel empowered or disempowered by ongoing and pre-existing personal and interpersonal factors such as their functional roles, work-based peer and supervisory support and ongoing exposure to discriminatory behaviours.

The findings from this interdisciplinary study provide empirical insights around why culture change interventions within healthcare organisations may be successful in certain contexts for certain staff groups and fail within others.