↓ Skip to main content

Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
329 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-127
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathal Doyle, Cathy Howe, Thomas Woodcock, Rowan Myron, Karen Phekoo, Chris McNicholas, Jessica Saffer, Derek Bell

Abstract

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL). Data from project teams' responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as 'engaged,' 'partially engaged' and 'non-engaged.' Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a 'diversity of opinion' measure was derived to assess response variance over time. Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as 'engaged,' six 'partially engaged,' and seven as 'non-engaged.' Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness. The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams' views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 325 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 22%
Researcher 32 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Student > Bachelor 31 9%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 60 18%
Unknown 84 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 82 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 70 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 6%
Social Sciences 16 5%
Psychology 15 5%
Other 38 12%
Unknown 89 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,451,504
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#304
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,520
of 212,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.