<?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss/styledrssBMC.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:extra="http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/schemas/extra/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/">
	<channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/rss">
		<extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
			<html:div xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
				<html:span style="font-weight:bold">This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central</html:span>
				<html:br/>
				<html:span style="font-size: 12px;">It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit <html:br/><html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/</html:a><html:br/>
				</html:span>
			</html:div>
		</extra:info>
		<title>Implementation Science - Latest articles</title>
		<link>http://www.implementationscience.com</link>
		<description>The latest articles from Implementation Science (ISSN 1748-5908) published by 
				
				BioMed Central
		</description>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/39"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/38"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/37"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/36"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/35"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/34"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/33"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/32"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/31"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/30"/>			    
            
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>  
    
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/39">
            
            <title>Knowledge Transfer in Tehran University of Medical Sciences: an academic example of a developing country</title>
			<description>Background:
In the past two decades, scientific publications in Iran have considerably increased their medical science content, and the number of articles published in ISI journals has doubled between 1997 and 2001. The aim of the present study was to determine how frequently knowledge transfer strategies were applied in Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS). We were also interested in studying the determining factors leading to the type of strategy selected.
Methodology
All TUMS research projects that had received grants from inside and outside the university in 2004, and were completed by the end of 2006, were included in the study. In total, 301 projects were examined, and data on each of the projects were collected by the research team using a standardized questionnaire. The projects' principle investigators filled out a second questionnaire. In all, 208 questionnaires were collected.
Results:
Researchers stated being more engaged in the passive strategies of knowledge transfer, especially those publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The mean score for the researchers' performance in passive and active strategies were 22% and 9% of the total score, respectively. Linear regression analysis showed that the passive strategy score decreased with the increase in the number of years working as a professional (p = 0.01) and personal interest as the only reason for choosing the research topic (p = 0.01). Regarding the active strategies of knowledge transfer, health system research studies significantly raised the score (p = 0.02) and 'executive responsibility' significantly lowered it (p = 0.03).
Conclusion:
As a study carried out in a Middle Eastern developing country, we see that, like many other universities in the world, many academicians still do not give priority to active strategies of knowledge transfer. Therefore, if 'linking knowledge to action' is necessary, it may also be necessary to introduce considerable changes in academic procedures and encouragement policies (e.g., employment and promotion criteria of academic members). </description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/39</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Saharnaz Nedjat, Reza Majdzadeh, Jaleh Gholami, Sima Nedjat, Katayoun Maleki, Mostafa Qorbani, Mostafa Shokoohi and Mahnaz Ashoorkhani</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:39</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-08-26</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-39</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>39</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-08-26</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/38">
            
            <title>Can patient decision aids help people make good decisions about participating in clinical trials? A study protocol</title>
			<description>Background:
Evidence shows that the standard process for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials can be inadequate, with study participants frequently not understanding even basic information fundamental to giving informed consent. Patient decision aids are effective decision support tools originally designed to help patients make difficult treatment or screening decisions. We propose that incorporating decision aids into the informed consent process will improve the extent to which participants make decisions that are informed and consistent with their preferences. A mixed methods study will test this proposal.
Methods:
Phase one of this project will involve assessment of a stratified random sample of 50 consent documents from recently completed investigator-initiated clinical trials, according to existing standards for supporting good decision making. Phase two will involve interviews of a purposive sample of 50 trial participants (10 participants from each of five different clinical areas) about their experience of the informed consent process, and how it could be improved. In phase three, we will convert consent forms for two completed clinical trials into decision aids and pilot test these new tools using a user-centered design approach, an iterative development process commonly employed in computer usability literature. In phase four, we will conduct a pilot observational study comparing the new tools to standard consent forms, with potential recruits to two hypothetical clinical trials. Outcomes will include knowledge of key aspects of the decision, knowledge of the probabilities of different outcomes, decisional conflict, the hypothetical participation decision, and qualitative impressions of the experience.DiscussionThis work will provide initial evidence about whether a patient decision aid can improve the informed consent process. The larger goal of this work is to examine whether study recruitment can be improved from (barely) informed consent based on disclosure-oriented documents, towards a process of high-quality participant decision-making.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/38</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Jamie C Brehaut, Alison Lott, Dean A Fergusson, Kaveh G Shojania, Jonathan Kimmelman and Raphael Saginur</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:38</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-23</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-38</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>38</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-23</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/37">
            
            <title>Clinical evidence continuous medical education: a randomised educational trial of an open access e-learning program for transferring evidence-based information &#8211; ICEKUBE (Italian Clinical Evidence Knowledge Utilization Behaviour Evaluation) &#8211; study protocol</title>
			<description>Background:
In an effort to ensure that all physicians have access to valid and reliable evidence on drug effectiveness, the Italian Drug Agency sponsored a free-access e-learning system, based on Clinical Evidence, called ECCE. Doctors have access to an electronic version and related clinical vignettes. Correct answers to the interactive vignettes provide Continuing Medical Education credits. The aims of this trial are to establish whether the e-learning program (ECCE) increases physicians' basic knowledge about common clinical scenarios, and whether ECCE is superior to the passive diffusion of information through the printed version of Clinical Evidence.DesignAll Italian doctors na&#239;ve to ECCE will be randomised to three groups. Group one will have access to ECCE for Clinical Evidence chapters and vignettes lot A and will provide control data for Clinical Evidence chapters and vignettes lot B; group two vice versa; group three will receive the concise printed version of Clinical Evidence. There are in fact two designs: a before and after pragmatic trial utilising a two by two incomplete block design (group one versus group two) and a classical design (group one and two versus group three). The primary outcome will be the retention of Clinical Evidence contents assessed from the scores for clinical vignettes selected from ECCE at least six months after the intervention. To avoid test-retest effects, we will randomly select vignettes out of lot A and lot B, avoiding repetitions. In order to preserve the comparability of lots, we will select vignettes with similar, optimal psychometric characteristics.Trial registrationISRCTN27453314</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/37</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Lorenzo Moja, Ivan Moschetti, Michela Cinquini, Valeria Sala, Anna Compagnoni, Piergiorgio Duca, Christian Deligant, Roberto Manfrini, Luca Clivio, Roberto Satolli, Antonio Addis, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Pietro Dri and Alessandro Liberati</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:37</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-17</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-37</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>37</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-17</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/36">
            
            <title>Healthcare professionals' intentions and behaviours: A systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories</title>
			<description>Background:
There is an important gap between the implications of clinical research evidence and the routine clinical practice of healthcare professionals. Because individual decisions are often central to adoption of a clinical-related behaviour, more information about the cognitive mechanisms underlying behaviours is needed to improve behaviour change interventions targeting healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to systematically review the published scientific literature about factors influencing health professionals' behaviours based on social cognitive theories. These theories refer to theories where individual cognitions/thoughts are viewed as processes intervening between observable stimuli and responses in real world situations.
Methods:
We searched psycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CIHNAL, Index to theses, PROQUEST dissertations and theses and Current Contents for articles published in English only. We included studies that aimed to predict healthcare professionals' intentions and behaviours with a clear specification of relying on a social cognitive theory. Information on percent of explained variance (R2) was used to compute the overall frequency-weighted mean R2 to evaluate the efficacy of prediction in several contexts and according to different methodological aspects. The cognitive factors most consistently associated with prediction of healthcare professionals' intention and behaviours were documented.
Results:
Seventy eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Among these studies, 72 provided information on the determinants of intention and 16 prospective studies provided information on the determinants of behaviour. The theory most often used as reference was the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) or its extension the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). An overall frequency-weighted mean R2 of 0.31 was observed for the prediction of behaviour; 0.59 for the prediction of intention. A number of moderators influenced the efficacy of prediction; frequency-weighted mean R2 varied from 0.001 to 0.58 for behaviour and 0.19 to 0.81 for intention.
Conclusion:
Our results suggest that the TPB appears to be an appropriate theory to predict behaviour whereas other theories better capture the dynamic underlying intention. In addition, given the variations in efficacy of prediction, special care should be given to methodological issues, especially to better define the context of behaviour performance.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/36</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Gaston Godin, Ariane B&#233;langer-Gravel, Martin Eccles and Jeremy Grimshaw</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:36</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-16</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-36</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>36</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-16</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/35">
            
            <title>A work force model to support the adoption of best practice care in chronic diseases &#8211; a missing piece in clinical guideline implementation</title>
			<description>The development and implementation of an evidence-based approach to health workforce planning is a necessary step to achieve access to best practice chronic disease management. In its absence, the widely reported failure in implementation of clinical best practice guidelines is almost certain to continue. This paper describes a demand model to estimate the community-based primary care health workforce consistent with the delivery of best practice chronic disease management and prevention. The model takes a geographic region as the planning frame and combines data about the health status of the regional population by disease category and stage, with best practice guidelines to estimate the clinical skill requirement or competencies for the region. The translation of the skill requirement into a service requirement can then be modelled, incorporating various assumptions about the occupation group to deliver nominated competencies. The service requirement, when compared with current service delivery, defines the gap or surplus in services. The results of the model could be used to inform service delivery as well as a workforce supply strategy.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/35</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Leonie Segal, Kim Dalziel and Tom Bolton</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:35</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-18</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-35</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>35</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-18</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/34">
            
            <title>Tailoring an intervention to the context and system redesign related to the intervention: A case study of implementing shared medical appointments for diabetes</title>
			<description>Background:
Incorporating shared medical appointments (SMAs) or group visits into clinical practice to improve care and increase efficiency has become a popular intervention, but the processes to implement and sustain them have not been well described. The purpose of this study was to describe the process of implementation of SMAs in the local context of a primary care clinic over time.
Methods:
The setting was a primary care clinic of an urban academic medical center of the Veterans Health Administration. We performed an in-depth case analysis utilizing both an innovations framework and a nested systems framework approach. This analysis helped organize and summarize implementation and sustainability issues, specifically: the pre-SMA local context; the processes of tailoring and implementation of the intervention; and the evolution and sustainability of the intervention and its context.
Results:
Both the improvement intervention and the local context co-adapted and evolved during implementation, ensuring sustainability. The most important promoting factors were the formation of a core team committed to quality and improvement, and the clinic leadership that was supported strongly by the team members. Tailoring had to also take into account key innovation-hindering factors, including limited resources (such as space), potential to alter longstanding patient-provider relationships, and organizational silos (disconnected groups) with core team members reporting to different supervisors.
Conclusion:
Although interventions must be designed to meet the needs of the sites in which they are implemented, specific guidance tailored to the practice environment was lacking. SMAs require complex changes that impact on care routines, collaborations, and various organizational levels. Although the SMA was not envisioned originally as a form of system redesign that would alter the context in which it was implemented, it became clear that tailoring the intervention alone would not ensure sustainability, and therefore adjustments to the system were required. The innovation necessitated reconfiguring some aspects of the primary care clinic itself and other services from which the patients and the team were derived. In addition, the relationships among different parts of the system were altered.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/34</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Susan R Kirsh, Ren&#233;e H Lawrence and David C Aron</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:34</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-04</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-34</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>34</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-04</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/33">
            
            <title>Translating clinical training into practice in complex mental health systems: Toward opening the 'Black Box' of implementation</title>
			<description>Background:
Implementing clinical training in a complex health care system is challenging. This report describes two successive trainings programs in one Veterans Affairs healthcare network and the lessons we drew from their success and failures. The first training experience led us to appreciate the value of careful implementation planning while the second suggested that use of an external facilitator might be an especially effective implementation component. We also describe a third training intervention in which we expect to more rigorously test our hypothesis regarding the value of external facilitation.
Results:
Our experiences appear to be consonant with the implementation model proposed by Fixsen. In this paper we offer a modified version of the Fixsen model with separate components related to training and implementation.
Conclusion:
This report further reinforces what others have noted, namely that educational interventions intended to change clinical practice should employ a multilevel approach if patients are to truly benefit from new skills gained by clinicians. We utilize an implementation research model to illustrate how the aims of the second intervention were realized and sustained over the 12-month follow-up period, and to suggest directions for future implementation research. The present report attests to the validity of, and contributes to, the emerging literature on implementation research.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/33</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Greer Sullivan, Dean Blevins and Michael R Kauth</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:33</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-03</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-33</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>33</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-03</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/32">
            
            <title>The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: A pilot controlled trial</title>
			<description>Background:
We sought to determine whether a multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing direct access to scheduling screening tests through standing orders, would be an effective and efficient means of promoting colon cancer screening in primary care practice.
Methods:
We conducted a controlled trial comparing the proportion of intervention patients who received colon cancer screening with wait list controls at one practice site. The intervention was a mailed package that included a letter from their primary care physician, a colon cancer screening decision aid, and instructions for obtaining each screening test without an office visit so that patients could access screening tests directly. Major outcomes were screening test completion and cost per additional patient screened.
Results:
In the intervention group, 15% (20/137) were screened versus 4% (4/100) in the control group (difference 11%; (95%; CI 3%;18% p = 0.01). The cost per additional patient screened was estimated to be $94.
Conclusion:
A multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing patients direct access to schedule screening tests, increased colon cancer screening test completion in a subset of patients within a single academic practice. Although the uptake of the decision aid was low, the cost was also modest, suggesting that this method could be a viable approach to colon cancer screening.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/32</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Carmen L Lewis, Alison T Brenner, Jennifer M Griffith and Michael P Pignone</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:32</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-32</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>32</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-02</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/31">
            
            <title>Patterns of research utilization on patient care units</title>
			<description>Background:
Organizational context plays a central role in shaping the use of research by healthcare professionals. The largest group of professionals employed in healthcare organizations is nurses, putting them in a position to influence patient and system outcomes significantly. However, investigators have often limited their study on the determinants of research use to individual factors over organizational or contextual factors.
Methods:
The purpose of this study was to examine the determinants of research use among nurses working in acute care hospitals, with an emphasis on identifying contextual determinants of research use. A comparative ethnographic case study design was used to examine seven patient care units (two adult and five pediatric units) in four hospitals in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Alberta). Data were collected over a six-month period by means of quantitative and qualitative approaches using an array of instruments and extensive fieldwork. The patient care unit was the unit of analysis. Drawing on the quantitative data and using correspondence analysis, relationships between various factors were mapped using the coefficient of variation.
Results:
Units with the highest mean research utilization scores clustered together on factors such as nurse critical thinking dispositions, unit culture (as measured by work creativity, work efficiency, questioning behavior, co-worker support, and the importance nurses place on access to continuing education), environmental complexity (as measured by changing patient acuity and re-sequencing of work), and nurses' attitudes towards research. Units with moderate research utilization clustered on organizational support, belief suspension, and intent to use research. Higher nursing workloads and lack of people support clustered more closely to units with the lowest research utilization scores.
Conclusion:
Modifiable characteristics of organizational context at the patient care unit level influences research utilization by nurses. These findings have implications for patient care unit structures and offer beginning direction for the development of interventions to enhance research use by nurses.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/31</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Carole A Estabrooks, Shannon Scott, Janet E Squires, Bonnie Stevens, Linda O'Brien-Pallas, Judy Watt-Watson, Joanne Profetto-McGrath, Kathy McGilton, Karen Golden-Biddle, Janice Lander, Gail Donner, Geertje Boschma, Charles K Humphrey and Jack Williams</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:31</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-31</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>31</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-02</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/30">
            
            <title>An organizational framework and strategic implementation for system-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI Series</title>
			<description>Background:
The continuing gap between available evidence and current practice in health care reinforces the need for more effective solutions, in particular related to organizational context. Considerable advances have been made within the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) in systematically implementing evidence into practice. These advances have been achieved through a system-level program focused on collaboration and partnerships among policy makers, clinicians, and researchers.The Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) was created to generate research-driven initiatives that directly enhance health care quality within the VA and, simultaneously, contribute to the field of implementation science. This paradigm-shifting effort provided a natural laboratory for exploring organizational change processes. This article describes the underlying change framework and implementation strategy used to operationalize QUERI.Strategic approach to organizational changeQUERI used an evidence-based organizational framework focused on three contextual elements: 1) cultural norms and values, in this case related to the role of health services researchers in evidence-based quality improvement; 2) capacity, in this case among researchers and key partners to engage in implementation research; 3) and supportive infrastructures to reinforce expectations for change and to sustain new behaviors as part of the norm. As part of a QUERI Series in Implementation Science, this article describes the framework's application in an innovative integration of health services research, policy, and clinical care delivery.
Conclusion:
QUERI's experience and success provide a case study in organizational change. It demonstrates that progress requires a strategic, systems-based effort. QUERI's evidence-based initiative involved a deliberate cultural shift, requiring ongoing commitment in multiple forms and at multiple levels. VA's commitment to QUERI came in the form of visionary leadership, targeted allocation of resources, infrastructure refinements, innovative peer review and study methods, and direct involvement of key stakeholders. Stakeholders included both those providing and managing clinical care, as well as those producing relevant evidence within the health care system. The organizational framework and related implementation interventions used to achieve contextual change resulted in engaged investigators and enhanced uptake of research knowledge. QUERI's approach and progress provide working hypotheses for others pursuing similar system-wide efforts to routinely achieve evidence-based care.</description>
			<link>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/30</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Cheryl B Stetler, Lynn McQueen, John Demakis and Brian S Mittman</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Implementation Science 2008, 3:30</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-05-29</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-30</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Implementation Science</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-5908</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>30</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-29</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
		
    <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
	</cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
