↓ Skip to main content

Integrating new practices: a qualitative study of how hospital innovations become routine

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, December 2015
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
39 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Integrating new practices: a qualitative study of how hospital innovations become routine
Published in
Implementation Science, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0357-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda L. Brewster, Leslie A. Curry, Emily J. Cherlin, Kristina Talbert-Slagle, Leora I. Horwitz, Elizabeth H. Bradley

Abstract

Hospital quality improvement efforts absorb substantial time and resources, but many innovations fail to integrate into organizational routines, undermining the potential to sustain the new practices. Despite a well-developed literature on the initial implementation of new practices, we have limited knowledge about the mechanisms by which integration occurs. We conducted a qualitative study using a purposive sample of hospitals that participated in the State Action on Avoidable Rehospitalizations (STAAR) initiative, a collaborative to reduce hospital readmissions that encouraged members to adopt new practices. We selected hospitals where risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRR) had improved (n = 7) or deteriorated (n = 3) over the course of the first 2 years of the STAAR initiative (2010-2011 to 2011-2012) and interviewed a range of staff at each site (90 total). We recruited hospitals until reaching theoretical saturation. The constant comparative method was used to conduct coding and identification of key themes. When innovations were successfully integrated, participants consistently reported that a small number of key staff held the innovation in place for as long as a year while more permanent integrating mechanisms began to work. Depending on characteristics of the innovation, one of three categories of integrating mechanisms eventually took over the role of holding new practices in place. Innovations that proved intrinsically rewarding to the staff, by making their jobs easier or more gratifying, became integrated through shifts in attitudes and norms over time. Innovations for which the staff did not perceive benefits to themselves were integrated through revised performance standards if the innovation involved complex tasks and through automation if the innovation involved simple tasks. Hospitals have an opportunity to promote the integration of new practices by planning for the extended effort required to hold a new practice in place while integration mechanisms take hold. By understanding how integrating mechanisms correspond to innovation characteristics, hospitals may be able to foster integrating mechanisms most likely to work for particular innovations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 201 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 18%
Researcher 31 15%
Student > Master 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 46 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 17%
Psychology 30 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Social Sciences 23 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 7%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 52 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,504,757
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#258
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,493
of 397,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 397,166 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 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.