Organizational Culture and Change

Collection of articles on Organizational Culture and Change is available here.

Preparing Nursing Contexts for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation: Where Should We Go From Here?
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

Cassidy CE, Flynn R, Shuman CJ.
Worldviews on evidence-based nursing 2021 apr;18(2):102-110.
BACKGROUND: Context is important to the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Currently, most published implementation efforts address context in relation to one specific EBP or a bundle of related EBPs. Since EBP and implementation are ongoing and dynamic, more discussion is needed on preparing nursing contexts to be more conducive to implementation generally. AIM: To discuss the need to create contexts that are more adaptable to ongoing change due to the dynamic nature of EBPs and the ever-changing healthcare environment. METHODS: This paper builds on a collection of our previous work, as nursing implementation scientists representing the Canadian and American healthcare contexts, and a literature review of the implementation science, knowledge translation, and sustainability literatures from 2006 to 2019. RESULTS: We argue for a different way of thinking about the influence of context and implementation of EBPs. We contend that nursing contexts must be prepared to be more flexible and conducive to ongoing EBP implementation more generally. Contexts that embrace, facilitate, and have the capacity for change may be more likely to effectively de-implement ineffective interventions or implement and sustain new EBPs. We outline future directions to build a program of research on preparing the soil for implementation of EBPs, including building capacity among nurses, supporting organizations to embrace change, co-producing research evidence, and contributing to implementation science. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Supporting contexts to adopt and sustain evidence in nursing practice is essential for bridging the evidence to practice gap and improving outcomes for patients, clinicians, and the health system. Moving forward, we need to develop a better understanding of how to create contexts that embrace change prior to the implementation of EBPs in order sustain improvements to patient and health system outcomes.

Provider REport of Sustainment Scale (PRESS): development and validation of a brief measure of inner context sustainment.
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

Moullin JC, Sklar M, Ehrhart MG, Green A, Aarons GA.
Implementation science : IS 2021 aug;16(1):86.
BACKGROUND: Implementation scientists and practitioners often rely on frontline providers for reporting on implementation outcomes. Furthermore, measures of sustainment are few, and available sustainment measures are mainly setting or evidenced-based practice (EBP) specific, require organizational and system-level knowledge to complete, and often lack psychometric rigor. The aim of this study was to develop a brief, pragmatic, and generalizable measure for completion by frontline service providers of the implementation outcome, sustainment. METHODS: We utilized a Rasch measurement theory approach to scale the development and testing of psychometric parameters. Sustainment items were developed to be relevant for direct service providers to complete. In order to promote generalizability, data were collected and items were tested across four diverse psychosocial evidence-based practices (motivational interviewing [MI], SafeCare®, classroom pivotal response training [CPRT], and an individualized mental health intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder [AIM-HI]) and in four service settings (substance use disorder treatment, child welfare, education, and specialty mental health). Associations between the sustainment measure and sustainment leadership, sustainment climate, and attitudes towards the adoption and use of each of the EBPs were assessed to confirm construct validity. RESULTS: Three items for the Provider REport of Sustainment Scale (PRESS) were assessed for measuring the core component of sustainment: continued use of the EBP. Internal consistency reliability was high. The scale indicated fit to the Rasch measurement model with no response dependency, ordered thresholds, no differential item functioning, and supported unidimensionality. Additionally, construct validity evidence was provided based on the correlations with related variables. CONCLUSION: The PRESS measure is a brief, three-item measure of sustainment that is both pragmatic and useable across different EBPs, provider types, and settings. The PRESS captures frontline staffs’ report of their clinic, team, or agency’s continued use of an EBP. Future testing of the PRESS for concurrent and predictive validity is recommended.