Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29743068›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Facilitating the implementation of clinical technology in healthcare: what role does a national agency play?

Gill Harvey, Sue Llewellyn, Greg Maniatopoulos, Alan Boyd, Rob Procter

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gill HarveyAdelaide Nursing School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. gillian.harvey@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0937-7819
Sue LlewellynAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK.
Greg ManiatopoulosInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Alan BoydAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK.
Rob ProcterDepartment of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Warwick, CV4 7AL, UK.
University of Manchester · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme HS&DR, 08/1820/254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccelerating the implementation of new technology in healthcare is typically complex and multi-faceted. One strategy is to charge a national agency with the responsibility for facilitating implementation. This study examines the role of such an agency in the English National Health Service. In particular, it compares two different facilitation strategies employed by the agency to support the implementation of insulin pump therapy.

methodsThe research involved an empirical case study of four healthcare organisations receiving different levels of facilitation from the national agency: two received active hands-on facilitation; one was the intended recipient of a more passive, web-based facilitation strategy; the other implemented the technology without any external facilitation. The primary method of data collection was semi-structured qualitative interviews with key individuals involved in implementation. The integrated-PARIHS framework was applied as a conceptual lens to analyse the data.

resultsThe two sites that received active facilitation from an Implementation Manager in the national agency made positive progress in implementing the technology. In both sites there was a high level of initial receptiveness to implementation. This was similar to a site that had successfully introduced insulin pump therapy without facilitation support from the national agency. By contrast, a site that did not have direct contact with the national agency made little progress with implementation, despite the availability of a web-based implementation resource. Clinicians expressed differences of opinion around the value and effectiveness of the technology and contextual barriers related to funding for implementation persisted. The national agency's intended roll out strategy using passive web-based facilitation appeared to have little impact.

conclusionsWhen favourable conditions exist, in terms of agreement around the value of the technology, clinician receptiveness and motivation to change, active facilitation via an external agency can help to structure the implementation process and address contextual barriers. Passive facilitation using web-based implementation resources appears less effective. Moving from initial implementation to wider scale-up presents challenges and is an issue that warrants further attention.

Indexed as

Health Systems AgenciesBiomedical TechnologyData CollectionEnglandHumansInventionsOrganizationsState MedicineFacilitationImplementationInsulin pump therapyi-PARIHSPARIHSTechnology

Identifiers

PMID29743068
PMCPMC5944036
OpenAlexW2800478328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.