Background Long-term sustained improvement following implementation of hospital-wide quality and safety initiatives is not easily achieved. Comprehensive theoretical and practical understanding of how gained improvements can be sustained to benefit safe and high-quality care is needed. This review aimed to identify enabling and hindering factors and their contributions to improvement sustainability from hospital-wide change to enhance patient safety and quality. Methods A systematic scoping review method was used. Searched were peer-reviewed published records on PubMed, Scopus, World of Science, CINAHL, Health Business Elite, Health Policy Reference Centre and Cochrane Library and grey literature. Review inclusion criteria included contemporary (2010 and onwards), empirical factors to improvement sustainability evaluated after the active implementation, hospital(s) based in the western Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Numerical and thematic analyses were undertaken. Results 17 peer-reviewed papers were reviewed. Improvement and implementation approaches were predominantly adopted to guide change. Less than 6 in 10 (53%) of reviewed papers included a guiding framework/model, none with a demonstrated focus on improvement sustainability. With an evaluation time point of 4.3 years on average, 62 factors to improvement sustainability were identified and emerged into three overarching themes: People, Process and Organisational Environment. These entailed, as subthemes, actors and their roles; planning, execution and maintenance of change; and internal contexts that enabled sustainability. Well-coordinated change delivery, customised local integration and continued change effort were three most critical elements. Mechanisms between identified factors emerged in the forms of Influence and Action towards sustained improvement. Conclusions The findings map contemporary empirical factors and their mechanisms towards change sustainability from a hospital-wide initiative to improve patient safety and quality. The identified factors and mechanisms extend current theoretical and empirical knowledgebases of sustaining improvement particularly with those beyond the active implementation. The provided conceptual framework offers an empirically evidenced and actionable guide to assist sustainable organisational change in hospital settings.

Ineffective knowledge dissemination contributes to clinical practice and service improvements not being realised. Meaningful knowledge translation can occur through the understanding and matching of appropriate communication mediums that are relevant for different stakeholders or audiences. To this end, we present a dissemination instrument, the ‘REAch and Diffusion of health iMprovement Evidence’ (README) checklist, for the communication of research findings, integrating both traditional and newer communication mediums. Additionally, we propose a ‘Strategic Translation and Engagement Planning’ (STEP) tool, for use when deciding which mediums to select. The STEP tool challenges the need for communicating complex and simple information against the desire for passive or active stakeholder interaction. Used collaboratively by academics and health professionals, README and STEP can promote co-production of research, subsequent diffusion of knowledge, and develop the capacity and skills of all stakeholders.

Background: Complex trauma is a significant public health issue with detrimental health, interpersonal and psychological impacts, which can impede client recovery and result in multiple representations. ‘Trauma Informed Practice’ (TIP) is an evidence-based model which ensures safe and effective services for clients and staff. This study examines health professional’s use of TIP, and the motivators, enablers and barriers to implementation in a multidisciplinary setting. Methods: A mixed methods study with 24 front-line clinicians and managers within a community health setting in Australia. A purpose designed, expert validated TIP checklist was completed, followed by semi-structured focus groups. Survey data was reported using descriptive statistics. Focus group data was digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Ten key factors were identified motivating, restricting or enabling TIP implementation. Seven were organisational factors including supportive and informed management, flexibility of service models, levels of service demands, resource availability, education opportunities, good client outcomes, and reporting requirements. Philosophical approach, team orientation, and vicarious trauma/stress management were three individual professional factors. Critically, alignment in two ways was necessary for successful implementation, that is: in knowledge and understanding across organisational role levels - clinician, manager and executive; and, in professional philosophy and team orientation of individual clinicians. Conclusion: Providing TIP is essential for ensuring optimum client outcomes for trauma survivors and for maintaining workforce wellbeing. Although the increasing uptake to TIP is evident within the health setting, further attention is required to address the tension between service models focused on efficiently servicing whole populations and those attuned to effectively meeting the needs of high risk groups. A complex strategy to unite therapeutic and managerial goals is necessary if client, professional and organisational needs are to be effectively met.

The study aim was to identify key strategies to improve organisational systems and care experiences, to confront the challenges of achieving effective patient feedback throughout a large healthcare organisation. A mixed methods exploratory approach was used. Purposive and snowball sampling, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and document analysis of existing feedback processes was utilised. The setting was a large metropolitan Local Health District in Sydney, Australia. Data was examined using thematic and content analysis. Participants identified no single feedback process was able to adequately gather all feedback necessary to reflect the patient experience. Patient feedback processes that are most useful: are in alignment with patient centred care principles; and, promote the return of information in a timely manner. Two types of patient feedback and their value was identified: proposals for resources; and, suggestions for improvements in processes. The optimal approach to gathering patient feedback requires: a combination of approaches; questioning about patient centred domains; and structured/unstructured and open/closed formats. Guidance and coordination from a central unit is imperative if improvement is to be integrated and effective across a large organisation. The study reveals that the key to achieving an effective patient feedback system is to utilise a multifaceted approach. A combination of approaches provides a comprehensive, adaptive strategy to address patient experience, satisfaction and outcomes. This approach, implemented throughout the organisation, enables relevant and actionable patient feedback to be gathered and implemented in a timely manner. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

Health system improvement (HSI) is focused on systematic changes to organisational processes and practices to improve the efficient delivery of safe care and quality outcomes. Guidelines that specify how interprofessional teams conduct HSI and knowledge translation are needed. We address this urgent requirement providing health professional teams with resources and strategies to investigate, analyse and implement system-level improvements. HSI encompasses similar, yet different, inter-related activities across a continuum. The continuum spans three categories of activities, such as quality improvement, health management research and translational health management research. A HSI decision making guide and checklist, comprising six-steps, is presented that can be used to select and plan projects. This resource comprises six interconnected steps including, defining the activity, project outcome, aim, use of evidence, appropriate methodology and implementation plan. Each step has been developed focusing on an objective, actions and resources. HSI activities provide a foundation for interprofessional collaboration, allowing multiple professions to create, share and disseminate knowledge for improved healthcare. When planned and executed well, HSI projects assist clinical and corporate staff to make evidence-informed decisions and directions for the benefit of the service, organisation and sector.