Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32885208›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Ready, set, go!: exploring use of a readiness process to implement pharmacy services.

Melanie Livet, Mary Yannayon, Chloe Richard, Lindsay Sorge, Paul Scanlon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Readiness of community pharmacies to implement an opioid safety intervention.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
    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

5 authors.

Melanie LivetCenter for Medication Optimization (CMO), Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7218-3163
Mary YannayonCenter for Medication Optimization (CMO), Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Chloe RichardCenter for Medication Optimization (CMO), Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Lindsay SorgeAlliance for Integrated Medication Management, Minneapolis, MN USA.
Paul ScanlonAlliance for Integrated Medication Management, Minneapolis, MN USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReadiness is an essential precursor of successful implementation; however, its conceptualization and application has proved elusive. R = MC

methodsThis mixed methods exploratory study used data collected as part of a process evaluation. Understanding application of the readiness process (Aim 1) involved examining team members' involvement (who?), readiness challenges and readiness building strategies (what?), strategy execution (how much?), and resulting changes (for what purpose?). To understand the sites' experience with the R = MC

resultsSites included primary care and specialty clinics, pharmacies within health systems, and community pharmacies. Teams consisted of 4-11 members, including a lead pharmacist. The teams' readiness activities clustered into five broad categories of readiness building strategies (e.g., building the operational infrastructure for service integration). Of the 34 strategies identified across sites, 68% were still in progress after 4 months. Engaging in the readiness process resulted in a number of outputs (e.g., data management systems) and benefits (e.g., an opportunity to ensure alignment of priorities and fit of the intervention). Based on the interviews, facilitators of the readiness process included assistance from a coach, internal support, and access to the readiness tools. Competing priorities and lack of resources, timely decision-making, and the timing of the readiness process were cited as barriers. The importance of service fit, stakeholder engagement, access to a structured approach, and rightsizing the readiness process emerged as lessons learned.

conclusionsThese findings provide valuable insights into the application of a readiness process. If readiness is to be integrated into routine practice as part of any implementation effort, it is critical to gain a better understanding of its application and value.

Indexed as

Implementation readinessMedication management servicesPharmacyReadiness barriersReadiness building strategiesReadiness facilitatorsUse of a readiness process

Identifiers

PMID32885208
PMCPMC7427920

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.