Structure of the findings section
The findings are divided into two parts reflecting the two phases of the study. A full account of the qualitative content analysis process used to do the document analysis is given in Chapter 3, Methodology and methods.
The following documents have been managed in Atlas-ti (version 5):
Table 3: Documents sampled during Phase One
NIHR Oakdown Hazeldean Ashgrove
4.5 Collaborations for
Five themes emerged from the analysis:
1. Approaches to implementation
2. Developing shared objects for implementation: boundary objects-in-theory
3. Boundaries
4. Generating context 5. Tailoring
134 These themes illustrate the various elements, people and processes involved implementation through CLAHRCs and the way in which boundary objects may be represented in the implementation process.
Approaches to implementation
This theme relates to the way in which CLAHRCs seek to activate and apply evidence-based knowledge using a variety of theories, models and methods.
The data provides the context of implementation, demonstrating the way in which each CLAHRC has interpreted and operationalised the implementation mandate within their proposals and the theoretical assumptions underpinning each CLAHRC’s approach.
Implementation as collaboration
Implementation as a collaborative process is represented through a diversity of concepts related to working together, partnership, joined up working, cooperation and teamwork.
The documents from across all three cases describe implementation as a collaborative activity to varying degrees. Collaboration is encouraged within and across the CLAHRCs, framed in terms of ‘joint’ and ‘joined up working’, for example at Hazeldean
We have promoted and supported networking across the CLAHRC, and have encouraged the concept of cross-theme working in the development of joint projects and posts, and promoted learning with one another as we progress. (Oakdown, D1, p11)
The focus on applied research as a collaborative exercise is also evident at Oakdown:
With this obvious need for health innovations, our vision for the collaboration is for [Oakdown] to become internationally recognised in the field of self-management of long-term conditions through applied research, health technology innovations and translation of knowledge into quality patient care. (Oakdown, D10, p. 171)
135 Implementation, improvement, and evaluation
There is a diversity of terms used to describe the process of getting evidence into practice, with mixed focus on the stages of the process at which stakeholder engagement and collaboration is required. At Ashgrove there appeared to be some ambiguity between what is described as formal and linear methods, and contemporary collaborative approaches to implementation:
The applied themes serve to establish a substantial team of researchers, practitioners, and managers who are acquiring experience of using research together. (Ashgrove, D9, p4)
Translation is regarded as a new, broader, collaborative approach that brings clinicians, researchers, patients, and managers together to improve care. (Ashgrove, D9. P4)
Across the three cases there appears to be a fusing of quality improvement and evaluation models with approaches to implementation. This gives a homespun feel where cycles such as Plan Do Study Act (PDSA, Langley et al, 2009) are used in conjunction with principles of the Knowledge to Action Cycle (K2A, Graham et al, 2006) and Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS), (Kitson et al, 1998; Rycroft-Malone et al, 2004) (for example during Hazeldean's CKD work).
Learning events and knowledge exchange opportunities
All three CLAHRCs focus on generating learning opportunities by scheduling events aimed at encouraging communication and collaboration between stakeholders:
To help us in our work, we have developed a Tele-Specialist Interest Group (Tele-SIG). The group includes local authority members as well as representatives from the region’s PCTs and Trusts. It provides a forum for the continued sharing of knowledge and enables members to highlight activities that are taking place in their own areas. As well as knowledge sharing, members identify and undertake new projects that fulfil service needs and have already
136 drawn up their strategic priorities. These are now being developed into local projects. (Oakdown, D1, p37)
Collaboration is encouraged within and across the CLAHRC, framed in terms of
‘joint’ and ‘joined up working’:
We have promoted and supported networking across the CLAHRC, and have encouraged the concept of cross-theme working in the development of joint projects and posts, and promoted learning with one another as we progress. (Oakdown, D1, p.11)
However it is difficult to ascertain from a document analysis what other types of informal boundary crossing events may happen as a part of implementation work, or whether or not shared objects play a role in this. It was anticipated that phase two would facilitate a more in depth exploration of what was taking place from a boundary-spanner’s perspective.
Communication, collaboration and relationships
Collaboration cannot occur in an absence of communication. Opening up a dialogue between potential stakeholders represents the first step in establishing a collaborative relationship. Building relationships between would-be partners is seen as the first step in establishing collaboration at Oakdown:
We have devoted year one to building good working relationships with the health care practitioners and commissioners whose engagement is essential to the CLAHRC’s implementation programme (Hazeldean, D2, p.12)
Oakdown describes how it is focusing on generating platforms for dialogue across boundaries, capitalising on existent links and developing inter-CLAHRC relationships:
We have invested considerable time in creating platforms to enable on-going dialogue between stakeholders and CLAHRC OAKDOWN.
Equally, we are developing other external links, both nationally and internationally. Having initiated regular meetings between the Directors of all nine CLAHRCs, we have become involved in joint
137 activity with other CLAHRCs. At least two of our themes, Diabetes and Stroke, already had active collaborations with CLAHRCs outside[Oakdown]. (Oakdown, D1. p. 12)
Ashgrove CLAHRC has extended the partnership to engage external health research organisations through its Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) initiative. This is appraised positively as evidence of establishing meaningful partnership across multiple stakeholder groups.
The CLAHRCs have also been successful in developing a joined up approach to PPI in other ways, including holding Learning Events with a clear PPI focus and by actively seeking to collaborate locally on PPI with their nearest Research Design Services, NHS Trusts, and Biomedical Research Centres and Units.
In summary whilst implementation is described as a collaborative endeavour across much of the documents, it also retains a focus on more traditional approaches to service evaluation and continuing improvement work. However, despite the assumption given by the CLAHRC’s name and the widely used rhetoric of collaboration, it is unclear as to where the practice of working together sits in terms of the continuum between consultation and collective sense making and problem solving. The multiple interpretations of getting evidence into practice suggest that the concept itself may possess boundary object properties.
The various theories, models and frameworks of getting evidence into practice have been identified as object, model and maps type boundary objects, and are discussed later in this chapter.
Developing shared objects for implementation
A range of objects were identified through the documentary analysis as a potential boundary object; that is, on paper, but it has not been possible to show if they operate as boundary objects in practice. These are objects and ideas which may be shared between stakeholders involved in implementation to smooth boundaries, encourage communication, and enable cooperation between stakeholders, organisations, localities, academia and practice.
138 This theme directly relates to the research question “How are boundary objects represented (if at all)?” and as such reflects much of the focus of phase one.
This category captures the types of objects and ideas which have been identified in the sampled documents as those which possess a boundary spanning potential.
A total identified of 48 items were identified as potential boundary objects in CLAHRC documents. These ranged from highly visible and concrete objects such as the abundant references to best practice guidelines (for example Ashgrove’s obesity guideline implementation project), to the development of assessment tools (such as Hazeldean’s stroke assessment tool), as well as the focus on validating disease registers at Hazeldean and Ashgrove, and through the use of an Excel based data extraction and audit tool with which to do this.
The next section discusses these theoretical boundary objects in the context of the revised taxonomy of boundary objects proposed as an outcome of the literature review (See table below).
Table 8: Updated Typology of Boundary Objects
Boundary object Definition
shared things or ideas around which communication and collaboration can be focused and coordinated
Repositories Ordered stores of standardised information accessible to different users at multiple sites
Standardised methods and forms
Standardised format allows easy sharing and promotes consistency of embedded and shared information despite contextual and other differences between settings and users
Objects, models and maps Shared representations standing in for place, person, process or idea, often simpler or abstracted in a way that transmit a key point or interpretation free of the complexity of the thing or idea as its exists naturally,
Symbolic objects Multiply interpreted conceptual an/or material things or ideas which possess persuasive and emotive properties.
139 Repositories
Ordered stores of standardised information accessible to different users at multiple sites.
Chronic disease registers and databases
Chronic disease registers (relating to long term vascular conditions including chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes, and heart failure (HF) provide a good examples of repository type boundary objects involved in implementation identified in documents sampled. Disease registers represent collections of standardised patient information that can be accessed by multiple users across multiple clinical settings. Updating and validating these registers to ensure that they provide accurate patient data represents a shared concern across Ashgrove and Hazeldean (see documents D2 and D6).
In terms of implementation, these registers contain information that potentially informs, directs and coordinates implementation work, as well as providing a focus around which collaborative groups could potentially form (akin to Wenger’s(1998) theory of communities of practice). Validating, maintaining, and training Primary Care practices in using these registers represents the focus of much implementation work at Hazeldean and Ashgrove, who are engaged in a formal collaboration around implementing an improvement package together with a data extraction and audit tool which can be used to interrogate the registers. Their role in improving evidence-based practice is clearly demonstrated at Hazeldean:
Next steps. We will continue to work with practices, testing further improvements to achieve our aim of adding approximately 2,500 patients to CKD disease registers, with 75% of those patients having their blood pressure managed in accordance with NICE guidelines, by July 2010. (Hazeldean, D2, p.16)
Validated registers also provided a potential benchmark against which implementation outcomes can be measured, for example as described in the CKD Collaborative report:
140 An impressive 1,324 additional patients have been added to the CKD registers by the 19 Collaborative practices (Hazeldean and Ashgrove, D6, p. 7)
In this way the registers provide a focus for collaboration, around which multiple stakeholders representing the domains of research (CLAHRC boundary spanners) and practice (GPs and Primary Care employees) are able to work together across multiple settings.
Disease registers as repository type boundary objects can be used in a variety of ways and for different purposes. At Hazeldean diabetes registers are again found to play a role in bridging an all too often overlooked boundary between physical health (i.e. diabetes) and mental (i.e. depression):
All 1,000 people on the type 1 diabetes register were sent a copy of the Diabetes UK booklet on diabetes and depression, a depression assessment form, together with an invitation from a hospital specialist to return the forms if they would like to discuss the contents of the booklet – an offer accepted by 20% of patients (Hazeldean, D2, p9)
However, despite theoretically, that is, on paper, providing a focus of much implementation work across Hazeldean and Ashgrove, it is difficult to gauge whether these repositories operate to align and unify stakeholders in practice.
An objective of phase two is to unpack this.
Websites as repositories
Like their disease registers, CLAHRC-built websites are aimed at encouraging engagement in implementation activities. These websites again provide ordered stores of information, which can be accessed and used in a numbers of ways by different users from across different sites. At Hazeldean, boundary crossing is facilitated by a website which provides a mechanism to enable communication across boundaries distinguishing patients, carers and practitioners during the implementation of an evidence-based Standard of Care for heart failure:
141 A website for patients, carers and health care professionals will support the programme, holding up-to-date clinical guidelines, patient stories and advice, service information and, in the case of professionals, facilitating information exchange. (Hazeldean, D2, p17)
However, scant data relating to the uptake and use of such websites prompts a query as to whether or not such websites are used consistently, effectively or by the intended users, and if so, how does this actively facilitate boundary spanning?
142 Repositories Standardised methods & forms Objects, models & maps symbolic objects Boundary spanners
Disease
Table 9: Examples of Potential Boundary Objects
143 Standardised methods and forms
Standardised format allows easy sharing and promotes consistency of embedded and shared information despite contextual and other differences between settings and users
Standardised methods and form type boundary objects are identified in the many kinds of tools required for, or around which, implementation activity is focused across the sampled documents.
Care pathways, protocols and other standardised approaches to care
The shared format of many of these tools identifies them as standardised methods and forms (SMF) type boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989).
These shared objects are intended to enable the collection and collation of standardised information across different contexts, reducing local uncertainties to provide a means of common communication across groups.
Clinical care pathways are identified as standardised methods and forms which featured predominately throughout the documents to provide “one way of providing more standardised care to all patients” (p13, document six). Care pathways have been developed as a decision-making and care delivery tool against which the roles and responsibilities of each member of the MDT can be benchmarked, documented and evaluated, to provide a roadmap of the decision making and care delivery process. These pathways clarify the roles and responsibilities of each member in line with best practice evidence in order to provide a document that guides and records the decision made by the MDT regarding treatment and outcomes.
CLAHRCs’ mandate to improve self-management of chronic conditions encourages a reappraisal of care pathways. This has prompted a range of work across each CLAHRC focused on engaging patients and carers in the development of care pathways in order to generate tools in which patient knowledge and perspective is embedded. This approach is demonstrated at Ashgrove:
144 Self-management of Longer-term Depression (IQuESTS), aims to increase both user engagement with services and self-management by employing user knowledge and experience in the development of those services. We are trying to find out and test the best ways to improve the care pathway for people with this distressing and disabling condition (Ashgrove, D3 p34)
The data suggest that each CLAHRC has focused on developing pathways which meet the needs of patients more effectively by embedding stakeholder knowledge in them.
A comprehensive care pathway map of HF transitions of care between hospital and community services across NHS Hazeldean has been developed, utilising discovery interviews with clinicians, audit of patient records and data to document the perceptions and realities of the patient’s journey along the pathway. (Hazeldean, D2, p13)
The Health Care Practitioners research theme has engaged patients and carers in developing a care pathway for people with vascular conditions who also have depression. (Hazeldean, D2, p.23)
Other standardised methods and forms include tools such as Ashgrove’s CKD register data extraction and audit tool, and the various care pathways being developed to better reflect users’ needs. There are also the many guidelines and standards of care whose content provides much of the research-based knowledge to be implemented across all three CLAHRCs. These objects possess the potential to provide a shared object which may be helpful in encouraging collaboration by drawing different individuals and groups to work together towards a specific implementation goal.
Other evidence-based clinical tools
Potential boundary objects are widely represented in the various tools which are being developed and implemented across all three CLAHRCs. Each CLAHRC has focused both on the development and delivery of a number of tools, both to enable implementation (for example Ashgrove’s implementation toolkit), or as
145 an outcome of implementation work (such as the stroke assessment tool developed by Hazeldean CLAHRC)
An example of a tool developed as an outcome of implementation through CLAHRCs is provided by the development of a stroke assessment tool at Hazeldean. The tool has been developed in partnership with stroke patients and practitioners to capture unmet needs of stroke survivors across a number of patient-specific domains. In terms of implementation it provides an example of an object that is the focus of implementation the work, developed to support dialogue and bridge the boundaries between patient and practitioner:
Selecting and refining the tools developed or implemented by CLAHRC is a crucial aspect of implementation work across all three cases. Training stakeholders to use these tools effectively is another important aspect and relates to activities aimed at embedding these objects in daily practice so that their use becomes familiar, routine and accepted.
Implementation methods
NIHR funding of CLAHRCs: throughout the data there is the acknowledgement that the methods of getting research into practice must themselves be evidenced – choosing the most appropriate implementation intervention is crucial. This is a stated objective of CLAHRC’s as set out in the original NIHR call for pilots:
The Group was particularly keen that new interventions would include analysis of mechanisms for implementation themselves, i.e.
the trialling of initiatives to encourage adoption of evidence based practice or clinical effectiveness. (NIHR, D5, p.1):
Evaluating these “formal methods of implementation” (Baker et al, 2009) to some extent reflects funding requirement as stated by NIHR: “Our providers need efficient and practical methods that can be used routinely” (Ashgrove, D9, p4).
The data from across all three CLAHRCs suggest that a variety of models and frameworks have been applied across each CLAHRC, with a fusing of
146 improvement and evaluation approaches in order to provide a barometer of quantifiable outcomes. This gives a sense that there is a level of inconsistency between and within each CLAHRC when it comes to approaching implementation, with various elements of both the Knowledge-to-action cycle (Graham et al, 2006) and the PARiHS framework (Kitson et al, 1998; Rycroft-Malone et al, 2004) partnered with a range of evaluation and improvement approaches such as implementing the Plan Do Study Act (Deming, 1986) improvement cycle at Hazeldean.
Objects, models, and maps
Shared representations standing in for place, person, process or idea, often simpler or abstracted in a way that transmit a key point or interpretation free of the complexity of the thing or idea as its exists in nature.
Alongside standardised methods and forms (Star and Griesemer, 1989), things that can be described as objects models and maps (Carlile, 2002) type boundary objects dominate the data. Object, models, and maps are representations consisting of incomplete information to convey a whole, which can serve as a ‘good enough’ framework for cooperation (Star and Griesemer, 1989). Guidelines and standards of care are the most noticeable examples in the CLAHRC documents of objects models and maps; in terms of implementation these receive the greatest attention across all CLAHRCs. Also represented within this group are the various approaches to getting evidence into practice such as the Knowledge to Action Cycle (Graham et al, 2006) and
Alongside standardised methods and forms (Star and Griesemer, 1989), things that can be described as objects models and maps (Carlile, 2002) type boundary objects dominate the data. Object, models, and maps are representations consisting of incomplete information to convey a whole, which can serve as a ‘good enough’ framework for cooperation (Star and Griesemer, 1989). Guidelines and standards of care are the most noticeable examples in the CLAHRC documents of objects models and maps; in terms of implementation these receive the greatest attention across all CLAHRCs. Also represented within this group are the various approaches to getting evidence into practice such as the Knowledge to Action Cycle (Graham et al, 2006) and