About SHARE
Background
Aims
Research questions
Methods
Design
Case study
Model for evidence-based change
Action research
Development of methods
Data collection
Data analysis and synthesis
Deliberative process
Delivery of disinvestment projects
Investigation and selection of proposals
Implementation
Evaluation
Explication of processes and outcomes
Results and discussion
Positive | Negative |
---|---|
External environment | |
▪ Legislation, regulations, national and international standards, and professional standards must be followed. This provides clarity and certainty for some decisions ▪ International bodies and national agencies of other countries provide evidence-based recommendations for use of health technologies, clinical practices, models of care, etc. Systematic reviews and Health Technology Assessments are also available. ▪ The Australian government provides evidence-based recommendations for use of medical and surgical procedures and drugs ▪ Monitoring, evaluation and reporting of outcomes was required for government funded projects ▪ Department of Treasury is interested in supporting disinvestment initiatives but requires details of savings. If savings or reinvestments can be quantified the department may provide more funding | ▪ Some decision-makers are unaware of mandatory requirements ▪ Decision-makers are frequently unaware of evidence-based resources. ▪ Due to lack of time, knowledge and skills decision-makers do not actively seek these resources when making decisions and do not differentiate between high and low quality resources. ▪ Not all medical and surgical procedures and drugs are covered by national policies; nursing and allied health practices, models of care and clinical consumables are not covered ▪ Cost-effectiveness data is often based on modelling which is perceived not to reflect reality ▪ It is hard to measure savings; savings are rarely realised because they are absorbed and used to treat more patients |
Organisational environment (Monash Health) | |
▪ Enthusiastic and dedicated staff; staff commitment to quality improvement ▪ Organisational support from the Executive Management Team (EMT) and Directors of Nursing ▪ The Board, EMT and Senior Managers have expressed ‘patient-centred care’ as a priority. ▪ Involvement of people who are outside of, or uninterested in, the politics of the organisation ▪ Transparency and accountability in decision-making was highly valued and improved transparency and accountability at Monash Health was desired ▪ At site level there is good ‘buy-in’ for change and people are keen to make things work | ▪ Organisational culture is difficult to change ▪ Organisational politics gets in the way ▪ Considerable pressures on the health service to reduce costs. ▪ Lack of processes for project development, implementation, responsibility and accountability ▪ Lack of transparency in all aspects ▪ Lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making reduces confidence; inadequate transparency and accountability was one of the strongest messages ▪ No systematic processes to link projects across the organisation |
Identification process | |
▪ Projects were identified reactively based on - Government or externally mandated change such as new legislation, regulation or standards; national or state initiatives; and product alerts and recalls. - Clinician or management initiatives arising from awareness of successful projects elsewhere, conference presentations, journals and other publications, and drug and equipment manufacturer promotions. - Problem solving driven by critical incidents, staff or consumer feedback, changing population needs, changing demand for services and budget shortfalls. ▪ Monash Health had well-documented processes for purchasing and procurement and guideline and protocol development and high level expertise in evidence synthesis and utilisation, data analysis and utilisation, and system redesign | ▪ General perceptions that - financial drivers stronger than clinical drivers, ‘Sound practice is not always affordable practice’ - impetus for change was ad hoc, there was no systematic or proactive approach - internal bureaucracy and red tape stifled ideas ▪ People by-pass the system and just make changes, usually not deliberate but due to lack of awareness of processes ▪ Some applications for change are driven by pharmaceutical or equipment manufacturers ▪ No examples of using purchasing and procurement, guideline and protocol development, evidence from research or local data, health economic approaches or system redesign to identify potential opportunities for disinvestment were identified |
Prioritisation and decision-making process | |
▪ Using research evidence and local data in decision making was considered to be important. ▪ All respondents reported using research evidence and data in decision-making to some extent. ▪ Many examples of cross-unit/department consultation and collaboration for policy and protocol development and implementation. ▪ Conflict of Interest was required as a standing item on the agendas of relevant committees. Most committees had a process for conflict of interest for committee members, and some of those with an application process had a similar procedure for applicants. | ▪ Only one committee and one individual used explicit, documented decision-making criteria ▪ Only one committee required explicit inclusion of research and local data and considered the quality and applicability of this evidence. Only one of the ten projects appraised the evidence used. The other committees had no process to seek evidence from research. When evidence from research and data was used it was not usually appraised for quality or applicability. ▪ Barriers to using research evidence include no uninterrupted blocks of time, slow computers, lack of skills in finding and analysing evidence ▪ Appropriate local data was frequently reported to be lacking, unavailable and ‘manipulated’ ▪ Decision-making ‘in isolation’, ‘fragmentation’ and a ‘silo mentality’ were reported in relation to decisions made without consideration of the areas they would impact upon or consultation with relevant stakeholders. |
Rationale and motivation | |
▪ Reasons for previous ‘disinvestment-type’ projects to remove, restrict or replace current practices include reducing patient harm, reducing medication error, reducing unnecessary tests, improving communication, standardising care, saving money and saving time. Most projects had more than one of these objectives | ▪ Perceived distinction between ‘what the hospital is concerned about (finances, organisational capacity and risk management) and what the clinician is concerned about (patients)’. |
Proposal for change | |
▪ When the benefits of the proposed practice change are clear and observable ▪ When there is clarity, relevance, credibility and reliablity of research findings ▪ Availability of quality and timely local data ▪ Sustainability more likely if a range of staff involved, ‘bottom-up’ approaches to change used and monitoring of outcomes undertaken | ▪ Lack of baseline data meant that potential adopters were unable to see the benefit or relevance to their situation resulting in less ‘buy in’ and poor uptake. |
Potential adopters | |
▪ Having the appropriate profession engaging others in change process, for example nurses should be implementing projects with nurses, not pharmacists ▪ Flexible and adaptable staff | ▪ Resistance to change ▪ Staff cynicism about the importance of changes and relevance to them ▪ Some clinicians insist on autonomy in their areas of expertise |
Potential patients | |
▪ Many respondents supported increased consumer participation and were planning to act upon this | ▪ Only one committee included consumer representation in decision-making. ▪ Several respondents thought that consumer representation on their committees would be inappropriate or that consumers had insufficient technical understanding to participate. |
Implementation plan | |
▪ Decisions made at program level that involve multiple wards, departments or sites are usually implemented by multidisciplinary teams ▪ Allowing wards to nominate themselves for participation in projects ▪ ‘Bottom up’ approach to develop individual implementation plan in each ward ▪ Those with project ‘champions’ unanimously considered champions important to the success of the project. ▪ Lots of preparation including training and communication with all stakeholders ▪ ‘Bottom up’ training to gain staff ‘buy in’ combined with ‘top down’ supportive strategy ▪ Training or education included passive methods using posters and memos, interactive learning on new equipment and participatory approaches involving staff in design and implementation. | ▪ Things take a long time to implement, to the point that they ‘fall off the agenda’ ▪ Variability in current practice and lack of standardisation increases number of practices to change ▪ Large size, nature and diversity of the organisation increases complexity of implementation across departments with different needsLack of effective implementation pathways ▪ Lack of infrastructure, technical support and resources ▪ High staff turnover in the organisation, particularly agency nurses and junior staff, increases difficulty in communication and implementation ▪ Organisational culture is difficult to change ▪ Organisational politics ▪ High staff turnover in projects diminishes organisational knowledge and expertise and increases training requirements ▪ Competing priorities ▪ Lack of time, undertaking projects while continuing normal clinical duties ▪ One project had no implementation plan ▪ Education and training is not well provided for part-time and night staff |
Evaluation plan | |
▪ Evaluation and monitoring were considered important and had broad support ▪ Routine clinical audits and monitoring of adverse events undertaken for hospital accreditation purposes provided indirect evaluation of decisions in some situations. | ▪ No requirements for evaluation of outcomes of decisions or projects. ▪ Most committees had no planned evaluation of outcomes of decisions or implementation projects. ▪ Quality and Risk Managers are not included at the beginning to help with collection of baseline data and evaluation design |
Implementation and evaluation resources | |
▪ Finding others who have done the same work for support, advice and information ▪ Establishing Working Parties and Steering Committees for support, endorsement, troubleshooting ▪ Project leader whose primary role is ‘at the coal face’ ▪ CCE was establishing an in-house Evaluation Service at the time of these interviews ▪ Use of pre-existing, pre-tested tools from other organisations eg audit tools ▪ Provision of extra staff ▪ Availability of extra funds enhanced implementation and evaluation, eg introduction of the National Inpatients Medication Chart had external funding specifically for implementation and evaluation ▪ Some clinical pathways involve no additional costs ▪ Some projects were provided with adequate resources for implementation and evaluation ▪ Some wards had additional staffing for education support and clinical nurse support. These were invaluable resources for practice change, protocol development and implementation. ▪ Some projects had external funding from DHS, universities, etc. for staff or infrastructure costs ▪ CCE ran training programs in finding and using evidence, implementation and evaluation ▪ Six of 10 projects had training for project staff in change management, leadership or IT skills. | ▪ Unrealistic project timelines ▪ Lack of knowledge, skills and confidence in project management, change management, evaluation methods and tools, and use of information technology. These barriers were exacerbated when interventions were complex and required high levels of training ▪ Lack of/inadequate project management and communication resulted in multiple people making inconsistent changes ▪ Some project staff felt isolated and would have liked support from others who had done the same or similar work ▪ It was not always clear who was responsible for project management ▪ Staffing issues, including leave, mean that a lot of projects are on hold ▪ High staff turnover in projects diminishes organisational knowledge and expertise and increases training requirements ▪ No specified evaluators with appropriate training or expertise had been utilised by the respondents ▪ A lack of data was seen to contribute to the current state of ‘little or no process of evaluation’. ▪ Lack of/inadequate funding, lack of information about available funding ▪ Funding for new equipment frequently did not include funding for training staff to use it or the consumables required. ▪ Many projects were to be carried out ‘within existing resources’. Respondents noted that they either did unpaid overtime or aspects of the project were not undertaken. ▪ Staff dissatisfaction with the expectation of their superiors that they will do more work within existing resources |
What methods are available to identify potential disinvestment opportunities in a local health service? What were the processes and outcomes of application of these methods at Monash Health?
▪ Consider disinvestment explicitly in long term planning exercises |
▪ Discuss principles of disinvestment and examples of successful projects at department/unit meetings, educational events, etc |
▪ Assign member of decision-making committees to look for disinvestment opportunities in their decisions |
▪ Add a disinvestment question to the Leadership Walkround protocol |
▪ Identify clinical champions interested in disinvestment in each program/department/unit who would look out for opportunities |
▪ Encourage support staff who have undertaken a disinvestment project to look for more opportunities |
▪ Have disinvestment as a high priority in medication safety reviews |
▪ Encourage or require projects that are introducing something new to have a component of disinvestment |
▪ Review projects that are being conducted for other reasons and identify and focus on any disinvestment elements |
▪ Introduce thinking about disinvestment into quality improvement training programs |
1. Purchasing and procurement processes
2. Guideline and protocol development
3. Proactive use of published research
4. Proactive use of local data
5. Economic approaches to priority setting
6. System redesign
7. Expression of Interest
8. Ad hoc submission process
Potential projects and reason for nomination | Source | Result of investigation |
---|---|---|
1. Reduce ordering of ‘routine’ diagnostic tests in specific setting as thought to be unnecessary and result in increase risk of adverse events and increased costs to hospital and/or patient | Committee member | Not investigated: Further clarification of problem postponed in favour of subsequent proposals |
2. Reduce ordering of diagnostic tests in specified setting due to lack of evidence of benefit and concern about validity, reliability and performance of equipment | Committee member | Not investigated: Further clarification of problem postponed in favour of subsequent proposals |
3. Reduce ordering of diagnostic tests in specified setting as thought to be of little diagnostic value | Committee member | Not investigated: Further clarification of problem postponed in favour of subsequent proposals |
4. Replace equipment with alternative to reduce adverse events and improve patient outcomes in specified patient group resulting in cost savings | Project champion | Not investigated: Project identified too late to be completed within SHARE timelines |
5. Replace diagnostic test in specified patient group for one thought to be more appropriate | Committee member | Investigation not completed: Directed by Steering Committee to pursue Therapeutic Equivalence projects |
6. Reduce admission of specified patient group as thought to be unnecessary in many cases | Committee member | Investigation not completed: Directed by steering committee to pursue Therapeutic Equivalence projects |
7. Replace drug with lower cost but equally effective alternative in appropriate cases as project being undertaken anyway and it would be good way to learn about the change process | Therapeutic Equivalence project | Rejected: Project was already underway |
8. Replace drug with lower cost but equally effective alternative in appropriate cases as project being undertaken anyway and it would be good way to learn about the change process | Therapeutic Equivalence project | Rejected: Project was already underway |
9. Reduce use of therapeutic intervention due to concerns about safety and effectiveness | Committee member | Rejected: Lack of clarity regarding explicit problem, patient groups, etc. |
10. Reduce use of therapeutic intervention as thought to have no evidence of benefit | Committee member | Rejected: Evidence for change unclear |
11. Reduce use of therapeutic intervention as thought to have no benefit over less expensive alternative | Committee member | Rejected: Preference to wait until large RCT underway at the time provided conclusive evidence |
12. Reduce ordering of ‘routine’ diagnostic tests in specified setting as thought to be unnecessary, result in increase risk of adverse events and increased costs to hospital and/or patient | Committee member | Rejected: Specific setting already planned to be investigated by others in organisational review but timing was unspecified |
13. Cease use of therapeutic intervention in specified patient group due to published debate questioning effectiveness | Committee member | Rejected: Evidence not relevant to local patient population |
14. Reduce ordering of ‘routine’ diagnostic tests in specified patient group as thought to have no evidence of benefit | Committee member | Rejected: Department could not provide backfill to replace project champion who would undertake project |
15. Reduce use of therapeutic intervention in specified patient group due to concerns about patient safety, not recommended in clinical guidelines used elsewhere | Committee member | Decision postponed: While proposer confirmed evidence Rejected: When discovered that project had commenced |
16. Replace therapeutic intervention in specified patient group with one considered to be safer, more effective and more cost-effective and funded by state health department | VPACT project | Accepted then Withdrawn: Clinicians became aware of additional evidence and elected to undertake RCT |
17. Restrict use of therapeutic intervention in specified patient group as local practice thought to be inconsistent with recently published national guidelines | Expression of interest | Accepted then Withdrawn: Clinicians not convinced by evidence, local practice found not to be inconsistent |
18. Reduce ordering of diagnostic tests considered to be inappropriate in certain unspecified situations | Expression of interest | Accepted then Rejected: Inopportune timing due to external accreditation process and introduction of new computer database and electronic ordering system |
19. Replace therapeutic intervention in specified patient group with one considered to be safer, more effective and more cost-effective and funded by state health department | VPACT project | Accepted: Project undertaken with SHARE support but evaluation incomplete due to loss of funding prior to completion of implementation |
What methods are available for prioritisation and decision-making to initiate disinvestment projects in a local health service? What were the processes and outcomes of application of these methods at Monash Health?
Prioritisation framework and tool
Decision-making to proceed with a disinvestment project
Criteria in the SHARE Expression of Interest application |
▪ The project must aim to remove, restrict or replace a technology or clinical practice ▪ There must be high-quality evidence for the proposed change (as indicated by existing systematic review or body of evidence from peer reviewed articles) ▪ Department and Program heads endorse the proposed change ▪ Department or Program agrees to provide EFT/project leader to implement the proposed change ▪ The current clinical pathway is documented or a commitment is given to document this pathway before the project begins ▪ There are clear, measurable outcomes and ability to collect baseline and comparison data |
Criteria that may increase the likelihood of project success or sustainability |
▪ Project leaders who have the power to make change happen in their area of responsibility such as Unit Managers or Department Heads ▪ Project champions who are respected and trusted by the potential adopters ▪ Interested, engaged clinicians working in the topic area ▪ Available funding ▪ Projects that propose reallocation of resource savings |
Criteria that may be useful for selection of pilot or demonstration projects in disinvestment |
▪ Projects that are already planned for another reason that also contain an element of disinvestment ▪ Projects to introduce a new TCP where disinvestment of an existing practice can be made a focus of the project ▪ Opportunity for a ‘quick win’ |
Criteria that may increase the usefulness of a pilot or demonstration projects in disinvestment |
▪ Projects that are required to collect detailed data, for example reporting requirements of external funders ▪ Projects with robust data at baseline |
What methods are available to develop, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local health service? What were the processes and outcomes of application of these methods at Monash Health?
Positive | Negative |
---|---|
External environment | |
▪ The project funders had significant impact on the project - Political support for new technology ▪ The other health services in the consortium also had significant impact - Collaboration with some of the other health services in writing pathway and documents and developing database and implementation strategies was helpful ▪ Manufacturer’s information was useful ▪ Manufacturer’s technical representative was helpful | ▪ The project funders had significant impact on the project - Monash Health informed that they had to lead a consortium of health services in implementing the new technology, adding complexity to the original application - Lack of consultation in choice of partner health services - Requirements for data collection and reporting changed during the project ▪ The other health services in the consortium also had significant impact - Slow and difficult to coordinate when working with other health services - Lack of accountability in some of the other health services - Lack of ‘buy-in’ from other health services through the entire process |
Organisational environment (Monash Health) | |
▪ Monash Health’s reputation as a leader will facilitate new technology support ▪ Monash Health encourages innovation ▪ Support from Centre for Clinical Effectiveness (CCE) ▪ Support from Clinical Program Directors ▪ Support from Finance Department and having someone who can translate the finance jargon ▪ Clinical Resource Nurse monthly meetings ▪ Nursing/Allied Health collaboration ▪ Although staff leave and secondments are difficult there can also be an advantage of working with replacement staff who become familiar with the project | ▪ Organisational processes appear to be changing regularly ▪ Lack of clarity around organisational structures and processes eg who to go to for what, when etc. ▪ Lack of communication eg machine delivered to a corridor on a Friday afternoon and left unsecured over the weekend. A component was lost and a new component had to be purchased. ▪ Relevant patient group and clinical expertise in this area located at site A and new machine is at site B. Patients usually scheduled for surgery at A will have to transfer to B. ▪ Sites have different cultures and processes and patients and staff will have to adapt ▪ Impact on other departments eg Sterilisation department has to learn new procedure ▪ Staff secondments and/or leave |
Identification process (VPACT application process for introduction of new TCP) | |
▪ Proposed by potential adopters (nursing/allied health and surgeons) ▪ Support from CCE to provide supporting evidence ▪ Support from Clinical Information Management to provide supporting data | ▪ Application form is really long and a lot of work ▪ Lack of awareness of the workload prior to commencing work on application |
Prioritisation and decision-making process (SHARE process to determine disinvestment project) | |
▪ VPACT funding and endorsement ▪ Clinical project team keen to access CCE expertise and support for project delivery | |
Rationale and motivation | |
▪ To reduce harm, improve patient outcomes, improve service efficiency, save money | ▪ Emphasis on financial/economic outcomes |
Proposal for change | |
▪ There is good evidence to support the new technology ▪ Data on patient group, burden of disease, impact of new technology provided in detail ▪ New technology does not cause long lasting/irreversible damage ▪ Easy to use ▪ Proposal for change is clear ▪ Relative advantage is clear: improved outcomes for both patients and health service ▪ Endorsed by clinical leaders, good local engagement, clinical champions ▪ Surgeons allowed to keep the theatre time and reduce their own waiting lists (rather than reallocating to other surgical specialties or closing theatres to realise savings) | ▪ Longer time to set up than other treatment options ▪ Lots of protective clothing which can be uncomfortable ▪ Mentally and physically tiring ▪ The whole process of change including administration, training, support, etc. is a lot of work |
Potential adopters (Nursing and Allied Health staff to undertake new procedure, surgeons to reduce old procedure, junior medical staff to refer patients appropriately | |
▪ Most surgeons happy to relinquish old procedure to allow them to undertake other procedures ▪ Surgeons involved in VPACT application have become an authority on the new technology ▪ Senior clinical staff read up on new technology as they don’t want to lose face ▪ Registrars (referrers) are supportive of/have an interest in new technologies ▪ General interest among staff ▪ Nursing/Allied Health team look professional, able to build credibility and trust with patients | ▪ One group of surgeons less likely to refer patients for new procedure, do not appreciate role of podiatrist in patient care, lack of understanding of treatment options ▪ Some surgeons/medical staff have issues with territorialism and ego |
Potential patients | |
▪ Patients with chronic conditions are more open to trying new treatments | ▪ This group of patients are less likely to be comfortable travelling to different hospitals ▪ Lack of English language can be a problem |
Implementation plan | |
▪ Small training workshops with medical teams ▪ Support from CCE ▪ Support from Clinical Program Directors ▪ Maintenance of a booking system ▪ Quarterly meetings with all participating health services | ▪ Should have performed barriers and enablers analysis earlier in process ▪ Involvement of other hospitals with staff who are not dedicated/committed (eg disputes among doctors from another site) ▪ Having to repeat training every 3–6 months due to staff rotations ▪ Attrition of podiatrists and Clinical Nurse Consultants as they are often young women who leave or work part-time to have or care for children ▪ Keeping the team motivated is hard ▪ VPACT did not meet costs stipulated in application; fewer machines, limited consumables, etc. ▪ Lack of dedicated treatment room increases time for preparation and cleaning. Clinical time is small in comparison to set up/clean up time. Inadequate ventilation (aerosols are created with treatments) |
Evaluation plan | |
▪ Support from CCE in development of evaluation plan ▪ Having a person in charge of data entry | ▪ ‘Shifting the goal posts’ by VPACT regarding data collection and reporting |
Implementation and evaluation resources | |
▪ Other clinical staff voluntarily take up extra workload (both barrier and enabler) ▪ Support from CCE in design of a database, assistance with data entry and reporting ▪ Support from SHARE health economist in development of cost-comparison plan ▪ Monash Health ‘Scope of practice’ processes and documents were helpful | ▪ Inadequate funding for clinical staff to implement and evaluate change process ▪ Other clinical staff voluntarily take up extra workload (both barrier and enabler) ▪ Time needed to write up new scope of practice documents |
What factors influenced the decisions, processes and outcomes?
Positive | Negative |
---|---|
External environment | |
▪ The SHARE program was adequately funded (until the final phase of the program) ▪ Two proposals that received state health department funding and endorsement were considered favourably. ▪ Two proposals were triggered by new national guidelines, one by an editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia, and others by journal articles, email bulletins, attendance at conferences and proposers awareness of practice elsewhere. | ▪ The state health department withdrew funding for the final phase of the SHARE program resulting in reduction of the proposed evaluation activities. ▪ One project was rejected due to difficulties implementing change during the national accreditation process for this department’s services. |
Organisational environment (Monash Health) | |
▪ Monash Health encourages and supports innovation ▪ High level expertise was available from CCE and Clinical Information Management | ▪ Waiting for responses to email correspondence and requests for appointments to meet with key personnel; time lags due to annual and long service leave and decisions by committees that only meet monthly delayed the processes of identification, prioritisation, decision-making and project development. Delays in deciding that unsuitable projects would not go ahead prevented other potentially suitable projects from being investigated. ▪ The proposer of one project was unaware of an existing organisational review into the problem. ▪ Delays related to introduction of a new computer database and electronic ordering system contributed to one project being rejected. |
Identification process | |
▪ The ‘bottom up’ Expression of Interest process was the only systematic approach used, resulting in two projects being received and accepted (but both later rejected). | ▪ The ‘top down’ evidence-based catalogue of disinvestment opportunities was not utilised in identifying potential projects. ▪ The ‘ad hoc’ process of nominations and decision-making dominated ▪ Most proposals were made by ‘outsiders’ not involved in the nominated clinical pathway. Only two proposals were made by the potential adopters, although one subsequently withdrew their application. |
Prioritisation and decision-making process | |
▪ All discussions were held within meetings and documented in the minutes; there were no attempts to be covert or follow hidden agendas. ▪ Conflict of interest was addressed as a routine agenda item. ▪ All clinical programs, health professional disciplines, consumers and technical experts in evidence, data, legal, ethics, finance, purchasing, biomedical engineering and information technology were represented in decision-making. | ▪ There were no explicit processes for risk assessment, deliberation or appeal. It was not always clear how decisions had been made. ▪ The SHARE Steering Committee did not have authority to direct change. Proposals were put to department heads who declined to follow them up (based on reasoned arguments that they should not to go ahead). |
Rationale and motivation | |
▪ Safety and effectiveness were the primary reasons for nominating TCPs for disinvestment, cost-savings were a secondary benefit | |
Proposal for change | |
▪ Six proposals were submitted based on guidelines, systematic reviews or health technology assessments; the four accepted projects were in this group. ▪ Four proposals had supporting data, two regarding unnecessary diagnostic imaging tests and the two VPACT projects. ▪ The two VPACT projects presented defined objectives. ▪ One project had a clear reinvestment plan which allowed operating theatre time previously used by patients now undergoing the new non-surgical procedure to be used by other patients on the waiting lists, this was the implemented pilot project. | ▪ In 13 proposals, the nominator did not provide supporting evidence. ▪ Many of the proposals did not clearly define the TCP, patient population group, circumstances of restriction, etc. This is difficult to quantify as clarification may have been forthcoming but the proposals were not investigated further |
Potential adopters | |
▪ Three nominations were made by the potential adopters; one was the pilot project accepted and implemented, one was accepted as a pilot project but was subsequently withdrawn by the applicants and the other was nominated too late to be included in the SHARE timeframe | ▪ Decisions regarding eight proposals were declined by heads of the departments responsible for the proposed TCP. Reasons included lack of clarity of the problem, lack of supporting evidence, or the evidence was not relevant to local patient groups. ▪ In two of the accepted projects, the key adopters reversed their decisions about the supporting evidence and withdrew. |
Potential patients | |
▪ Two proposals were rejected when it became clear that the evidence did not apply to the Monash Health population. | |
Implementation and evaluation plans and resources | |
▪ The CCE/SHARE support staff had appropriate expertise and knowledge of methods and tools for implementation and evaluation. ▪ The CCE team provided access to research literature and liaised on behalf of the clinical project teams with the Clinical Information Management (CIM) unit who were happy to provide access to data and assistance with analysis. ▪ All implementation activities within the control of the SHARE project team were completed ▪ Detailed evaluation plans were developed in consultation with an external health program evaluator and health economist ▪ One proposal had assistance of a research fellow to undertake the project work (but this did not go ahead for other reasons). ▪ The clinical project leads of two accepted projects attended workshops in evidence-based change, implementation and evaluation | ▪ Lack of evaluation funding precluded understanding of the barriers that prevented implementation of the planned systematic evidence-based processes ▪ Lack of evaluation funding limited evaluation activities in the last year of the program ▪ One project was rejected by the department head because they could not provide backfill for the clinical duties of the project leader. |
Difficulty identifying disinvestment projects
Non-systematic approach
Nominations by ‘outsiders’
Authority and ownership
Rationale and motivation
Proposal for change
SUCCESS |
A proposal is more likely to be successful if it meets the following criteria |
Based on sound evidence or expert consensus |
✓ Systematic review of multiple RCTs; surgeons, nurses and allied health staff in agreement with findings |
Presented by credible organisation |
✓ Review undertaken by the Australian Safety and Efficiency Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical (Royal Australasian College of Surgeons) |
Able to be tested and adapted |
✗ There was limited opportunity to test and adapt as the VPACT funding required complete roll out
|
Relative advantage is evident |
✓ Clear evidence of multiple improved patient and health service outcomes; increased safety and effectiveness, reduced costs |
Low complexity |
✓ The new technology is easy to use |
Compatible with status quo |
✓ Referrers use the same referral process but divide patients into those eligible for the new procedure and those who should still undergo the old procedure |
✗ The new service was provided at a different campus and patients and staff had to adapt
|
✗ There is some impact on other departments that also have to adapt
|
Attractive and accessible format |
✓ The new procedure is attractive to patients as it replaces surgery with an outpatient/bedside procedure |
SUSTAINABILITY |
A proposal is more likely to be sustainable if it has appropriate and adequate provision in each category |
Structure |
✓ The new procedure is carried out within existing nursing and allied health structures with appropriate governance and supports |
Skills |
✓ Nursing and allied health staff were upskilled in the new procedure; changes in scope of practice were documented and approved |
✓ Clinical project team leaders attended training and welcomed support and direction in project management, implementation and evaluation |
Resources |
✓ Funding was provided for staffing, equipment and consumables |
✗ Final funding was less than the amount approved in the application process leaving the project short of one machine and associated consumables
|
✓ Assistance from the Capacity Building and Project Support Services was provided |
Commitment |
✓ The project had organisational commitment from the Technology/Clinical Practice Committee, and program and departmental commitment from clinical leaders and managers |
Leadership |
✓ The clinical project team demonstrated effective leadership |
SUITABILITY FOR DISINVESTMENT |
Factors in the pilot project considered likely to be favourable for a disinvestment project at Monash Health |
✓ The current practice to be replaced and the new practice to be implemented were clear and patient eligibility was determined |
✓ The proposal for change was clear with clear objectives |
✓ Department and Program heads endorsed the change |
✓ External funding was available |
✓ The clinical pathway and referral process were documented |
✓ Detailed data collection and reporting was a requirement of the external funding |
✓ Baseline data had been collected and supporting data on patient group, burden of disease and impact of the new technology was available |
✓ There was strong local ownership and clinical champions |
✓ ‘Win-win’ scenario for adopters where nursing and allied health staff were keen to take on new procedural skills and surgeons were happy to relinquish these cases to make operating theatre time available for other patients |
✓ Surgeons were allowed to keep the theatre time released by the changes and reduce their own waiting lists (rather than reallocation to other surgical specialties or closing theatres to realise savings) |
✓ Potential ‘quick win’ scenario for a disinvestment demonstration project as the proposal was already fully developed, funding had been approved, and deadlines were in place. |
Key: ✓ Positive factors ✗ Negative factors |