From research to practice: factors affecting implementation of prospective targeted injury-detection systems

Aim This paper describes key factors that shaped implementation of prospective targeted injury-detection systems (TIDS) for adverse drug events (ADEs) and nosocomial pressure ulcers (PrU). Methods Using case-study methodology, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with implementation champions and TIDS users at five hospitals. Interviews focused on implementation experiences, assessment of TIDS' effectiveness and utility, and plans for sustainability. The authors used content analysis techniques to compare implementation experiences within and across organisations and triangulated data for explanation and confirmation of common themes. Findings Participating hospitals were more successful in implementing the low-complexity PrU-TIDS, as compared with high-complexity ADE-TIDS. This pattern reflected the greater complexity of ADE-TIDS, its higher costs and poorer alignment with existing workflows. Complexity affected the innovations' perceived usability, the time needed to learn and install the trigger systems, and their costs. Local factors affecting implementation and sustainability of both innovations included turnover affecting champions and other staff, shifting organisational priorities, changing information infrastructures, and institutional constraints on adapting existing IT to the electronic TIDS. Conclusions To facilitate implementation of complex healthcare innovations such as ADE-TIDS, staff in adopting organisations should give high priority to innovation implementation; allocate sufficient resources; effectively communicate with and involve local champions and users; and align innovations with workflows and information systems. In addition, they should monitor local factors, such as changes in organisational priorities and IT, availability of implementation staff and champions, and external regulations and constraints that may pose barriers to innovation implementation and sustainability.

[1]  David W. Bates,et al.  Can surveillance systems identify and avert adverse drug events? A prospective evaluation of a commercial application. , 2008, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[2]  Colleen Beecken Rye,et al.  The Adoption of Innovations by Provider Organizations in Health Care , 2007, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[3]  David A. Buchanan,et al.  The sustainability and spread of organizational change: modernizing healthcare , 2007 .

[4]  R S Evans,et al.  Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients* , 1991, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[5]  John F Hurdle,et al.  High rates of adverse drug events in a highly computerized hospital. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  G. Robert,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[7]  D. Levenson.  Hospital patient safety incidents account for $6 billion in extra costs annually. , 2004, Report on medical guidelines & outcomes research.

[8]  D. Levenson.  Studies evaluate hysterectomy as treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. , 2004, Report on medical guidelines & outcomes research.

[9]  D. Classen,et al.  Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[10]  Stephen B. Johnson,et al.  Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use , 2003, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[11]  David H Gustafson,et al.  Developing and testing a model to predict outcomes of organizational change. , 2003, Health services research.

[12]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[13]  K J Vicente,et al.  Improving the quality of health services in developing countries: lessons for the West , 2002, Quality & safety in health care.

[14]  J Gosbee,et al.  Human factors engineering and patient safety , 2002, Quality & safety in health care.

[15]  H. Bussell.  Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide , 2000 .

[16]  Raghu Garud,et al.  The innovation journey , 1999 .

[17]  A. Egberts,et al.  Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients A comparison of doctors, nurses and patients as sources of reports , 1999, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[18]  A Kitson,et al.  Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. , 1998, Quality in health care : QHC.

[19]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Research Paper: Identifying Adverse Drug Events: Development of a Computer-based Monitor and Comparison with Chart Review and Stimulated Voluntary Report , 1998, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[20]  C. Lyder,et al.  Validating the Braden Scale for the prediction of pressure ulcer risk in blacks and Latino/Hispanic elders: a pilot study. , 1998, Ostomy/wound management.

[21]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Identifying hospital admissions due to adverse drug events using a computer‐based monitor , 2001, AMIA.

[22]  S D Small,et al.  The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. , 1998, JAMA.

[23]  D. Classen,et al.  Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. , 1997, JAMA.

[24]  D. Bates,et al.  The Costs of Adverse Drug Events in Hospitalized Patients , 1997 .

[25]  David W. Bates,et al.  The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group , 1997 .

[26]  N. Dickey,et al.  Systems analysis of adverse drug events. , 1996, JAMA.

[27]  N. Laird,et al.  Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events , 1995 .

[28]  N. Laird,et al.  Incidence of Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events: Implications for Prevention , 1995 .

[29]  D. Bates,et al.  Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevention Study Group. , 1995, JAMA.

[30]  S D Small,et al.  Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. , 1995, JAMA.

[31]  R S Evans,et al.  Description of a computerized adverse drug event monitor using a hospital information system. , 1992, Hospital pharmacy.

[32]  R M Gardner,et al.  Computerized identification of patients at high risk for hospital-acquired infection. , 1992, American journal of infection control.

[33]  David C. Classen,et al.  The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  R S Evans,et al.  Prevention of adverse drug events through computerized surveillance. , 1992, Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.

[35]  R M Gardner,et al.  Computer surveillance of hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic use. , 1986, JAMA.

[36]  M. Patton.  Qualitative research and evaluation methods , 1980 .

[37]  N. Denzin.  The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods , 1977 .

[38]  H Jick,et al.  Drugs--remarkably nontoxic. , 1974, The New England journal of medicine.

[39]  J. McCulloch,et al.  CHAPTER 7 – Implications for Prevention , 1972 .

[40]  C. Brodsky.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research , 1968 .

[41]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .