Organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care: a Delphi study

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Randa Attieh ; Marie-Pierre Gagnon ; Carole A Estabrooks…
• 关键词：Organizational readiness ; Delphi study ; Knowledge translation ; Chronic care ; Measurement
• 刊名：BMC Health Services Research
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：December 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：14
• 期：1
• 全文大小：604 KB
• 参考文献：1. Greenhalgh, T, Stramer, K, Bratan, T, Byrne, E, Mohammad, Y, Russell, J (2008) Introduction of shared electronic records: multi-site case study using diffusion of innovation theory. BMJ 337: pp. 1-10
  2. Braithwaite, J, Marks, D, Taylor, N (2014) Harnessing implementation science to improve care quality and patient safety: a systematic review of targeted literature. Int J Qual Health Care 26: pp. 1-9 CrossRef
  3. Weiner, BJ, Amick, H, Lee, SY (2008) Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Med Care Res Rev 65: pp. 379-436 CrossRef
  4. Hovlid, E, Bukve, O (2014) A qualitative study of contextual factors' impact on measures to reduce surgery cancellations. BMC Health Serv Res 14: pp. 1-11
  5. Gagnon, M-P, Labarthe, J, Légaré, F, Ouimet, M, Estabrooks, C, Roch, G, Ghandour, EK, Grimshaw, J (2011) Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care. Implement Sci 6: pp. 1-10
  6. Attieh, R, Gagnon, M-P, Estabrooks, CA, Légaré, F, Ouimet, M, Roch, G, Ghandour, EK, Grimshaw, J (2013) Organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care: A review of theoretical components. Implement Sci 8: pp. 1-9
  7. Holt, DT, Armenakis, AA, Feild, HS, Harris, SG (2007) Readiness for organizational change: the systematic development of a scale. J Appl Behav Sci 43: pp. 232-255 CrossRef
  8. Holt, DT, Armenakis, AA, Harris, SG, Field, HS (2007) Toward a comprehensive definition of readiness for change: A review of research and instrumentation. Research in Organizational Change and Development 16: pp. 289-336 CrossRef
  9. Watkins, RE, Elliot, EJ, Halliday, J, O'Leary, C, D'Antoine, H, Russell, E, Hayes, L, Peadon, E, Wilkins, A, Jones, H, Mckenzie, A, Miers, S, Burns, L, Mutch, R, Payne, J, Fitzpatrick, J, Carter, M, Latimer, J, Bower, C (2013) A modified Delphi study of screening for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in Australia. BMC Pediatrics 13: pp. 1-12
  10. Hsu, CC, Sanford, BA (2007) The Delphi Technique: Making Sense Of Consensus. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 12: pp. 2-8
  11. Linde, H, Hofstad, CH, Limbeek, J, Postema, K, Geertzen, JHB (2005) Use of the Delphi Technique for developing national clinical guidelines for prescription of lower limb prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev 42: pp. 693-704 CrossRef
  12. Alexander, DR (2008) A Modified Delphi Study of Future Crises and Required Leader Competencies. Doctoral thesis, Retrieved from, ProQuest Digital Dissertations. AAT3349271. University of Phoenix, Ann Arbor
  13. Verhagen, AP, Vet, HC, Bie, RA, Kessels, AG, Boers, M, Bouter, LM, Knipschild, PG (1998) The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 51: pp. 1235-1241 CrossRef
  14. Hasson, F, Keeney, S, Mckenna, H (2000) Reasearch guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32: pp. 1008-1015
  15. Cohen, D, McDaniel, RR, Crabtree, BF, Ruhe, MC, Weyer, SM, Tallia, A, Miller, WL, Goodwin, MA, Nutting, P, Solberg, LI, Zyzanski, SJ, Jaen, CR, Gilchrist, V, Stange, KC (2004) A practice change model for quality improvement in primary care practice. J Healthc Manag 49: pp. 155-168
  16. Helfrich, CD, Li, YF, Sharp, ND, Sales, AE (2009) Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci 4: pp. 38 CrossRef
  17. Simpson, DD (2002) A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. J Subst Abuse Treat 22: pp. 171-182 CrossRef
  18. Lehman, WE, Greener, JM, Simpson, DD (2002) Assessing organizational readiness for change. J Subst Abuse Treat 22: pp. 197-209 CrossRef
  19.
• 刊物主题：Public Health; Health Administration; Health Informatics; Nursing Management/Nursing Research;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1472-6963

文摘

Background Health-care organizations need to be ready prior to implement evidence-based interventions. In this study, we sought to achieve consensus on a framework to assess the readiness of health-care organizations to implement evidence-based interventions in the context of chronic care. Methods We conducted a web-based modified Delphi study between March and May 2013. We contacted 76 potentially eligible international experts working in the fields of organizational readiness (OR), knowledge translation (KT), and chronic care to comment upon the 76 elements resulting from our proposed conceptual map. This conceptual map was based on a systematic review of the existing frameworks of Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) in health-care. We developed a conceptual map that proposed a set of core concepts and their associated 17 dimensions and 59 sub-dimensions. Experts rated their agreement concerning the applicability and importance of ORC elements on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates total disagreement and 5 indicates total agreement. Two rounds were needed to get a consensus from the experts. Consensus was a priori defined as strong (?5%) or moderate (60-74%). Simple descriptive statistics was used. Results In total, 14 participants completed the first round and 10 completed the two rounds. Panel members reached consensus on the applicability and importance of 6 out of 17 dimensions and 28 out of 59 sub-dimensions to assess OR for KT in the context of chronic care. A strong level of consensus (?5%) was attained on the Organizational contextual factors, Leadership/participation, Organizational support, and Motivation dimensions. The Organizational climate for change and Change content dimensions reached a moderate consensus (60-74%). Experts also reached consensus on 28 out of 59 sub-dimensions to assess OR for KT. Twenty-one sub-dimensions reached a strong consensus (?5%) and seven a moderate consensus (60-74%). Conclusion This study results provided the most important and applicable dimensions and sub-dimensions for assessing OR-KT in the context of chronic care. They can be used to guide the design of an assessment tool to improve knowledge translation in the field of chronic care.