Contributions to the literature
-
This review identifies 8 sustainability frameworks/models/theories (F/M/Ts), 7 key themes/constructs and 37 factors hypothesized to influence sustained use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for acute care team members who are planning or currently implementing EBPs with the goal of improving patient outcomes.
-
Of the 7 themes/constructs identified for acute care, 4 align with current literature, and 3 add to the body of evidence.
-
The analysis provides insight into sustainability as a process or ongoing stage adding to the current definition for sustainability.
-
The modified theory analysis tool can be used to examine concepts and factors of emerging or existing F/M/Ts.
Background
Methods
Search strategy and data sources
Inclusion criteria | |
Study Design | All published articles and dissertations/theses, systematic and scoping reviews, concept analysis |
Publication Dates | Published between January 2015 and July 3, 2018. Based on reviews by Moore et al. (2017); and Lennox et al. (2018) Represents the most refined version of the framework/model/theory (F/M/T) |
Setting | Recommended for use in acute care setting Recommended for use in any healthcare organization in general and did not specify a specific healthcare setting. Must explicitly provide factors and concepts relate to sustainability |
Outcomes | Primary outcome: A sustainability F/M/T that addresses the process of sustained use of research (evidence-based practice/guidelines/innovation/clinical protocol/programs/interventions) Provides a definition of sustainability. Because sustainability is defined numerous ways, we included all studies in which the originators used one of the following terms sustainability, routinization, institutionalization. Provides information on the theoretical underpinnings and evidence supporting the F/M/T Provides information on the concepts and related factors influencing sustainability of evidence-based practice/guidelines/innovation/clinical protocol/programs/interventions. |
Exclusion criteria | |
Publications | Exclude if not a unique and index version (most up to date) of the F/M/T |
Setting | Exclude if not recommended for use or applicable within a healthcare organizational practice setting Exclude if not explicitly recommended for use within acute care or unspecified healthcare organization/setting Exclude if explicitly recommended for use in a specific setting such as public health or community setting, or has a health promotion focus |
Language | Exclude all citations in any other languages than English |
Outcomes | Exclude if no F/M/T is included Excluded if about delivery system components and no F/M/T model included Exclude if only describes factors related to sustainability and no F/M/T is included Exclude if it contains both initial implementation and sustainability and does not explicitly provide a detailed breakdown of related sustainability concepts and factors. Excluded if the F/M/T being described is not about healthcare innovations/evidence-based practices |
Eligibility criteria
Data collection process and analysis
Categories | Criteria |
---|---|
Origins | Who are the developers, discipline, country? Methodological approach Evidence to support or refute model development Target domain (practice, education, research, policy) Motivation(s) for development |
Meaning of the framework/model/theory (F/M/T) | Examines conceptual definitions and their use Identifies concepts (factors), Inclusiveness of innovation, potential adopters, context factors Relationship between and among concepts (factors) Assumptions underlying the model (preconditions) Schematic presentation |
Empirical testability | Supported by empirical data (studies) |
Parsimonious Language | Clarity and simplicity while being complete (as per rater) Use of clear, concise language (as per rater) |
Logical adequacy | Logical adequacy (logical structure of the concepts and statements) Predictions or testable hypotheses are provided Logical fallacies within the content or structure of the model |
Usefulness | Supported by tools Practicality to nursing and or other target groups. Contributes to the understanding and predicting of outcomes |
Generalizability | Clinical context, generalizes (can be extended) to multiple settings |
Results
Framework/model/theory characteristics and quality appraisal
Origins
First author | Year | Country of origin | Name of F/M/Tl | Methodological approach used | Basis or field of study derived from | Recommended setting for use | Context level | Target audience |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buchanan et al. [25] | 2005 | UK | Sustaining Organizational Change Framework (SOCF) | Focused Systematic Review | -Organizational (orgal) change theory -Management (Mgmt.) and total Quality Improvement (QI) theory | Recommended for different types of change and different contexts—organizational settings providing health and human care services (p. 189) | Unit or organizational level | Researchers concerned with organizational change (p. 190) |
Racine [42] | 2006 | USA | Model for Sustaining Innovations in their effectiveness (MSI) | Focused Systematic Review | -Diffusion of Innovation theory -Orgal and Mgmt. theory | For use in health and human service innovations and related contexts, (p. 357, 381) | Unit or organizational level | Blueprint (p. 382) for funders, grantors, researchers and practitioners (p. 356-7) |
Maher et al. [39] | 2010 | UK | NHS Sustainability Model (NHS SM) | Bayesian subjective research co-production approach to identify and rank factors | -Orgal and Mgmt. theory | Healthcare settings and service innovations (p. 5 of guide) | Project or initiative level | Inter-disciplinary researchers and practitioners (p. 5) |
Slaghuis et al. [40] | 2011 | Netherlands | A Framework and a Measurement Instrument for Sustainability of Work Practice in long term care (FMIS WP) | Literature review of the concepts “routinization” and “institutionalization” | -Theory of routines | Applicable to multiple settings and service organizations in and out of healthcare including hospital care, long-term care (p. 323) | Department or organizational level | Researchers and practitioners seeking to measure if changed practices are sustained (p. 314) |
Chambers et al. [34] | 2013 | USA | Dynamic Sustainability Framework (DSF) | Literature review of the concepts “voltage drop” and “program drift” | -Ecological theory | Recommended for a broad range of healthcare service interventions and a myriad of clinical organization and community settings (p. 125) | Project or initiative level | Researchers, policy-makers, practitioners (p. 117, 123-4) |
Fox et al. [43] | 2015 | Australia | Sustainability of Innovation Theoretical Framework (SITF) | A synthesis of theoretical propositions from an integrative review featuring 2 frameworks: Greenhalgh et al 2004 and Chambers et al. 2013 | -Diffusion of Innovation theory | Broad range of healthcare service innovation in several contexts including nursing contexts (p. 73) | Unit or organizational level | Researchers (p. 70 ,74) |
Fleiszer et al. [13] | 2015 and 2016 | Canada | Sustainability of Healthcare Innovations Framework (SHIF) | Concept analysis of ‘innovation sustainability” | -Theories from multiple disciplines (health, social services, public healthy, mgmt.) | Diverse frontline acute healthcare nursing settings (2016, p. 215) | Unit level | Inter-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, administrators (p. 1484–5) |
Frykman et al. [41] | 2017 | Sweden | DCOM Framework with Realistic Evaluation (DCOMF) | Integrative review combining an organizational framework grounded in psychological theory with Realistic Evaluation | -Psychological theory of applied behavior analysis | Complex changing healthcare context such as emergency depts (p. 76) | Organizational level | Researchers and inter-professional practitioners (p. 64, 76) |
Meaning of the F/M/T
Reference | Synonym | Definition | Sustainability constructs by Moore et al [1] | No. of constructs total = 5 | New constructs | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
After a period of time | Continued delivery or use of innovation | Maintain behavior change (use of innovation) by individuals | Evolution or adaptions of innovation | Continued benefits of using innovation | Defined as process* | Defined as a stage** | ||||
Buchanan et al. [25] | Sustainability | The sustainability of change can be broadly defined as the 'process' through which new working methods, performance goals and improvement trajectories are maintained for a period appropriate to a given context [25]. | x | x | x | 3 | x | |||
Racine [42] | Sustainability | None provided The framework alludes to the existence of 'stages' in the process through which an innovation goes from adoption to sustainability | 0 | x | ||||||
Maher et al. [39] | Sustainability | Sustainability is when new ways of working and improved outcomes become the norm. Not only have the 'process' and outcome changed, but the thinking and attitudes behind them are fundamentally altered and the systems surrounding them are transformed in support. In other words, it has become an integrated or mainstream way of working rather than something “added on.” As a result, when you look at the process or outcome one year from now or longer, you can see that at a minimum it has not reverted to the old way or old level of performance. Further, it has been able to withstand challenge and variation; it has evolved alongside other changes in the context, and perhaps has actually continued to improve over time [40]. | x | x | X | X | 4 | x | ||
Slaghuis et al. [40] | Routinization | Sustainability is “a dynamic 'process' in which actors in a targeted work practice develop and/or adapt the organizational routines to a new work method. This process can also be described as routinization: through the development of organizational routines a new work method becomes part of everyday routine activities. This process also involves learning processes at different levels in the organization, as there is more to the daily performance of a work practice than just routinization” (40). | x | x | x | 3 | x | |||
Chambers et al. (34) | Sustainability | Sustainability is a 'process' of managing and supporting the evolution of an intervention within a changing context [35]. Sustainability has evolved from being considered as the endgame of a translational research process to a suggested “adaptation phase” that integrates and institutionalizes interventions within local organizational and cultural contexts (34]. | X | x | x | x | 4 | x | ||
Fox et al. [43] | Sustainability | No explicit definition is provided with framework. ...only explicitly states it combines the concepts presented by Greenhalgh et al. [44] in their systematic review (e.g., successful routinization is strongly impacted by staff continuity, attrition, and perceptions of the value and need of the innovation), and the DSF Chambers et al. [34] which posits the concept is not an endpoint but rather involves a 'process' of innovation evolution or continual adaptation as a result of learning, problem-solving and evolution [43]. | x | x | x | x | 4 | x | ||
Fleiszer et al. [13] | Sustainability | Sustainability is a 'process' that emerges from and succeeds innovation implementation wherein improvements are maintained, new ways of working become routine, surrounding systems are transformed in support and the innovation may even be developed, over a period of time appropriate to a given situation [13]. | x | x | x | x | 4 | x | ||
Frykman et al. [41] | Sustainability | x | x | x | x | 4 | x | |||
Total definitions referencing the construct | 6 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
Synthesis of factors and themes
Theme/concept | Core factors | Unspecified setting Fwks | Acute care Fwks | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | ||
Innovation (defined as: new process/change/product/practice or program, innovation, intervention) | *Relevance/consistent with competitive strategy | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
*Characteristics (scale, shape and form, age, nature, type, integrity) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
*Perceived centrality to organizational performance/platform/services | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Fit with org’s vision/mission, procedures/strategies | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Adaptability of innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
*Benefits to patient, staff, organization (cost-effective, efficiency and quality of care) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Barrier identification | ✓ | ||||||||
Adopters (defined as staff, stakeholder, user, adopter, actor, and or individual) | Human resources - recruitment, processes, succession and leave planning (staffing) | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
*Individual commitment to innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
*Individual competency (skill knowledge, absorptive capacity) to perform innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Internal cohesion between individual and commitment within the organization/stakeholder engagement leads to increased performance | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Stakeholder commitment to innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Stakeholder beliefs, attitude, perceptions, emotions, expectations towards innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Champion presence and involvement | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Leadership and management (defined as style, approach, behaviors, engagement support, or feedback) | *Management approach and engagement | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
*Senior leadership involvement and actions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Inner context (defined as context, practice setting or organization) | *Infrastructure support—policies and procedures based on innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Infrastructure support for innovation in the job description with the mechanism for recognizing achievement | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
*Infrastructure support-equipment and supplies for innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Organization—absorptive capacity for innovation | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Cultural—beliefs, values, and perceptions to innov | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
*Cultural—climate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Cultural—innovation integrated into Norms (documents, protocols, manuals) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Political internal stakeholder coalition, power, influence | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Financial performance budgeting and measurement | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Financial-internal funds and other non-financial resources of innovation | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Inner processes (defined as processes, methods, systems, structures, or strategies) | *Education and training processes | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Processual—planning, method, and timing of embedding innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
*Processual—project structure and system to monitor/manage innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
*Organization—communication capacity for monitoring (exchange and feedback) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Behavioral change strategies | ✓ | ||||||||
Outer context (defined as external condition, context, system, or environment) | Socio-economic political threats, stability | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
*External conditions, compatibility for innovation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Connection to broader external context | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
External support for innovation from stakeholders | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
*Political—policy, legislation, and interests | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Financial-internal funds and other non-financial resources of innovation | ✓ | ||||||||
Outcomes (defined as outcomes, teamwork behaviors, consequences, or continuation of benefits) | No factors explicitly defined in frameworks for this concept | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |