What is the impact of research champions on integrating research in mental health clinical practice? A quasiexperimental study in South London, UK.
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Key challenges for mental health healthcare professionals to implement research alongside clinical activity have been highlighted, such as insufficient time to apply research skills and lack of support and resources. We examined the impact of employing dedicated staff to promote research in community mental health clinical settings. DESIGN:Quasiexperiment before and after study. SETTING:South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust. PARTICIPANTS:4455 patients receiving care from 15 community mental health teams between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES:The proportion of patients approached for research participation in clinical services where research champions were present (intervention group), and where research champions were not present (comparison group). RESULTS:Patients in the intervention group were nearly six times more likely to be approached for research participation (Adj. OR=5.98; 95% CI 4.96 to 7.22). CONCLUSIONS:Investing in staff that promote and drive research in clinical services increases opportunities for patients to hear about and engage in clinical research studies. However, investment needs to move beyond employing short-term staff.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research to date has focused on strategies and resources used by effective champions of healthcare change efforts, rather than personal characteristics that contribute to their success. We sought to identify and describe champion attributes influencing outcomes of healthcare change efforts. To examine attributes of champions, we used postpartum contraceptive care as a case study, because recommended services are largely unavailable, and implementation requires significant effort. METHODS:We conducted a comparative case study of the implementation of inpatient postpartum contraceptive care at 11?U.S. maternity hospitals in 2017-18. We conducted site visits that included semi-structured key informant interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Phase one analysis (qualitative content analysis using a priori CFIR codes and cross-case synthesis) showed that implementation leaders ("champions") strongly influenced outcomes across sites. To understand champion effects, phase two inductive analysis included (1) identifying and elaborating key attributes of champions; (2) rating the presence or absence of each attribute in champions; and 3) cross-case synthesis to identify patterns among attributes, context, and implementation outcomes. RESULTS:We completed semi-structured interviews with 78 clinicians, nurses, residents, pharmacy and revenue cycle staff, and hospital administrators. All identified champions were obstetrician-gynecologists. Six key attributes of champions emerged: influence, ownership, physical presence at the point of change, persuasiveness, grit, and participative leadership style. These attributes promoted success by enabling champions to overcome institutional siloing, build and leverage professional networks, create tension for change, cultivate a positive learning climate, optimize compatibility with existing workflow, and engage key stakeholders. Not all champion attributes were required for success, and having all attributes did not guarantee success. CONCLUSIONS:Effective champions appear to leverage six key attributes to facilitate healthcare change efforts. Prospective evaluations of the interactions among champion attributes, context, and outcomes may further elucidate how champions exert their effects.
Project description:Objectives:To compare activities and field descriptions of clinical champions across three levels of stroke centers. Methods:A cross-sectional qualitative study using quota sampling was conducted. The setting for this study was 38 acute stroke centers based in US Veterans Affairs Medical Centers with 8 designated as Primary, 24 as Limited Hours, and 6 as Stroke Support Centers. Key informants involved in stroke care were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. A cross-case synthesis approach was used to conduct a qualitative analysis of clinical champions' behaviors and characteristics. Clinical champion behaviors were described and categorized across three dimensions: enthusiasm, persistence, and involving the right people. Results:Clinical champions at Primary Stroke Centers represented diverse medical disciplines and departments (education, quality management); directed implementation of acute stroke care processes; coordinated processes across service lines; and benefited from supportive contexts for implementation. Clinical champions at Limited Hours Stroke Centers varied in steering implementation efforts, building collaboration across disciplines, and engaging in other clinical champion activities. Clinical champions at Stroke Support Centers were implementing limited changes to stroke care and exhibited few behaviors fitting the three clinical champion dimensions. Other clinical champion behaviors included educating colleagues, problem-solving, implementing new care pathways, monitoring progress, and standardizing processes. Conclusion:These data demonstrate clinical champion behaviors for implementing changes to complex care processes such as acute stroke care. Changes to complex care processes involved coordination among clinicians from multiple services lines, persistence facing obstacles to change, and enthusiasm for targeted practice changes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change. METHODS:This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers' shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3?years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding. RESULTS:Five community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change. CONCLUSION:This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.
Project description:Background/aims:The idea that champions are crucial to effective healthcare-related implementation has gained broad acceptance; yet the champion construct has been hampered by inconsistent use across the published literature. This integrative review sought to establish the current state of the literature on champions in healthcare settings and bring greater clarity to this important construct. Methods:This integrative review was limited to research articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals published from 1980 to 2016. Searches were conducted on the online MEDLINE database via OVID and PubMed using the keyword "champion." Several additional terms often describe champions and were also included as keywords: implementation leader, opinion leader, facilitator, and change agent. Bibliographies of full-text articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for additional references not yet identified via the main strategy of conducting keyword searches in MEDLINE. A five-member team abstracted all full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria. Results:The final dataset for the integrative review consisted of 199 unique articles. Use of the term champion varied widely across the articles with respect to topic, specific job positions, or broader organizational roles. The most common method for operationalizing champion for purposes of analysis was the use of a dichotomous variable designating champion presence or absence. Four studies randomly allocated of the presence or absence of champions. Conclusions:The number of published champion-related articles has markedly increased: more articles were published during the last two years of this review (i.e. 2015-2016) than during its first 30?years (i.e. 1980-2009).The number of champion-related articles has continued to increase sharply since the year 2000. Individual studies consistently found that champions were important positive influences on implementation effectiveness. Although few in number, the randomized trials of champions that have been conducted demonstrate the feasibility of using experimental design to study the effects of champions in healthcare.
Project description:Our objective was to implement a directorate research strategy to improve and grow clinical academic capacity and capability and ensure that the organisational systems and processes enabled clinical staff and managers to increase grant capture, undertake clinically relevant research, including the adoption of NIHR portfolio sites and established a culture in which research was an accepted part of professional practice. An initial evaluation of senior and middle manager attitudes and understanding of the research infrastructure and benefits of research identified that the directorate had a deeply segmented view of research and only a partial view of how research could benefit patients and improve their services. A significant number of staff claimed to be research active but this activity was not contributing to the service knowledge or being translated into grant capture, leading to income that could be used to invest in patient facing research. Few managers had appreciated the challenge of implementing the research strategy or the potential of enabling research active staff to generate clinical academic careers. A quality improvement methodology was adopted, based on four equally important elements ; involving people (staff and patients) in research, developing people's research knowledge and skills, promoting an understanding of the complex systems and processes associated with research, and using an organisational research strategy with leadership to drive change. This improvement method suggests an equal and proportional range of activity to engage staff, amend and adapt processes and systems, carry out organisational change and "make it a habit". The improvement measures were selected by a number of managers who acted as "research champions" and shared these with all staff across the directorate; the focus was on delivering sustained improvements in performance targets agreed with the organisation. The interventions were introduced to assist managers in each professional group to champion research and undertake the organisational change that would be needed. The two cycles of improvement over 14 months were used to achieve "academic status" within the organisation, to include clinical staff in the delivery of the research strategy and to create a clinical academic infrastructure that incorporated a well organised public and patient involvement (PPI) panel. Additional measures included the level of participation of clinical academic staff in grant capture and the level of income from research to sustain the growth in activity.
Project description:Guidelines recommend screening patients for unhealthy behaviors and mental health concerns. Health risk assessments can systematically identify patient needs and trigger care. This study seeks to evaluate whether primary care practices can routinely implement such assessments into routine care.As part of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial, 9 diverse primary care practices implemented My Own Health Report (MOHR)-an electronic or paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment and feedback system paired with counseling and goal setting. We observed how practices integrated MOHR into their workflows, what additional practice staff time it required, and what percentage of patients completed a MOHR assessment (Reach).Most practices approached (60%) agreed to adopt MOHR. How they implemented MOHR depended on practice resources, informatics capacity, and patient characteristics. Three practices mailed patients invitations to complete MOHR on the Web, 1 called patients and completed MOHR over the telephone, 1 had patients complete MOHR on paper in the office, and 4 had staff help patients complete MOHR on the Web in the office. Overall, 3,591 patients were approached and 1,782 completed MOHR (Reach = 49.6%). Reach varied by implementation strategy with higher reach when MOHR was completed by staff than by patients (71.2% vs 30.2%, P <.001). No practices were able to sustain the complete MOHR assessment without adaptations after study completion. Fielding MOHR increased staff and clinician time an average of 28 minutes per visit.Primary care practices can implement health behavior and mental health assessments, but counseling patients effectively requires effort. Practices will need more support to implement and sustain assessments.
Project description:To describe an electronic, telephone-delivered, suicide risk management protocol (SRMP) that is designed to guide research staff and safely triage study participants who are at risk for self-harm.We tested the SRMP in the context of the NIH-funded randomized clinical trial "Bypassing the Blues" in which 302 patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were screened for depression and assessed by telephone 2-weeks following hospital discharge and at 2-, 4-, and 8-month follow-up. We programmed the SRMP to assign different risk levels based on patients' answers from none to imminent with action items for research staff keyed to each of them. We describe frequency of suicidal thinking, SRMP use, and completion of specific steps in the SRMP management process over the 8-month follow-up period.Suicidal ideation was expressed by 74 (25%) of the 302 study participants in 139 (13%) of the 1069 blinded telephone assessments performed by research staff. The SRMP was launched in 103 (10%) of assessments, and the suicidal risk level was classified as moderate or high in 10 (1%) of these assessments, thereby necessitating an immediate evaluation by a study psychiatrist. However, no hospitalizations, emergency room visits, or deaths ascribed to suicidal ideation were discovered during the study period.The SRMP was successful in systematically and safely guiding research staff lacking specialty mental health training through the standardized risk assessment and triaging research participants at risk for self-harm.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00091962 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00091962?term=rollman+cabg&rank=1).
Project description:<h4>Context</h4>Self-report questionnaires are an important method of evaluating lifespan health, exercise, and health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes among elite, competitive athletes. Few instruments, however, have undergone formal characterization of their psychometric properties within this population.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the validity and reliability of a novel health and exercise questionnaire, the Trojan Lifetime Champions (TLC) Health Survey.<h4>Design</h4>Descriptive laboratory study.<h4>Setting</h4>A large National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I university.<h4>Patients or other participants</h4>A total of 63 university alumni (age range, 24 to 84 years), including former varsity collegiate athletes and a control group of nonathletes.<h4>Intervention(s)</h4>Participants completed the TLC Health Survey twice at a mean interval of 23 days with randomization to the paper or electronic version of the instrument.<h4>Main outcome measure(s)</h4>Content validity, feasibility of administration, test-retest reliability, parallel-form reliability between paper and electronic forms, and estimates of systematic and typical error versus differences of clinical interest were assessed across a broad range of health, exercise, and HRQL measures.<h4>Results</h4>Correlation coefficients, including intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for continuous variables and ? agreement statistics for ordinal variables, for test-retest reliability averaged 0.86, 0.90, 0.80, and 0.74 for HRQL, lifetime health, recent health, and exercise variables, respectively. Correlation coefficients, again ICCs and ?, for parallel-form reliability (ie, equivalence) between paper and electronic versions averaged 0.90, 0.85, 0.85, and 0.81 for HRQL, lifetime health, recent health, and exercise variables, respectively. Typical measurement error was less than the a priori thresholds of clinical interest, and we found minimal evidence of systematic test-retest error. We found strong evidence of content validity, convergent construct validity with the Short-Form 12 Version 2 HRQL instrument, and feasibility of administration in an elite, competitive athletic population.<h4>Conclusions</h4>These data suggest that the TLC Health Survey is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing lifetime and recent health, exercise, and HRQL, among elite competitive athletes. Generalizability of the instrument may be enhanced by additional, larger-scale studies in diverse populations.