Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32313836›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2020

The Stanford Lightning Report Method: A comparison of rapid qualitative synthesis results across four implementation evaluations.

Cati Brown-Johnson, Nadia Safaeinili, Dani Zionts, Laura M Holdsworth, Jonathan G Shaw, Steven M Asch, Megan Mahoney, Marcy Winget

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cati Brown-JohnsonDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5415-3665
Nadia SafaeiniliDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4792-3091
Dani ZiontsDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.
Laura M HoldsworthDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.
Jonathan G ShawDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.
Steven M AschDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.
Megan MahoneyDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.
Marcy WingetDivision of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent evaluation methods are mismatched with the speed of health care innovation and needs of health care delivery partners. We introduce a qualitative approach called the lightning report method and its specific product-the "Lightning Report." We compare implementation evaluation results across four projects to explore report sensitivity and the potential depth and breadth of lightning report method findings.

methodsThe lightning report method was refined over 2.5 years across four projects: team-based primary care, cancer center transformation, precision health in primary care, and a national life-sustaining decisions initiative. The novelty of the lightning report method is the application of Plus/Delta/Insight debriefing to dynamic implementation evaluation. This analytic structure captures Plus ("what works"), Delta ("what needs to be changed"), and Insights (participant or evaluator insights, ideas, and recommendations). We used structured coding based on implementation science barriers and facilitators outlined in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied to 17 Lightning Reports from four projects.

resultsHealth care partners reported that Lighting Reports were valuable, easy to understand, and they implied reports supported "corrective action" for implementations. Comparative analysis revealed cross-project emphasis on the domains of

conclusionsThe lightning report method can fill a gap in rapid qualitative approaches and is generalizable with consistent but flexible core methods. Comparative analysis suggests it is a sensitive tool, capable of uncovering differences and insights in implementation across projects. The Lightning Report facilitates partnered evaluation and communication with stakeholders by providing real-time, actionable insights in dynamic health care implementations.

Indexed as

evaluationimplementation sciencemethodspatient centeredqualitativerapid synthesis

Identifiers

PMID32313836
PMCPMC7156867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.