Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders
From CFIR Wiki
|Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders|
Individuals from within the organization who have been formally appointed with responsibility for implementing an intervention as coordinator, project manager, team leader, or other similar role.
Formally appointed internal implementation leaders: Individuals from within the organization who have been formally appointed with responsibility for implementing an intervention as coordinator, project manager, team leader, or other similar role. These leaders may or may not have explicit time dedicated to the task. Implementation is 'part of the job.'
Rationale for inclusion
Individuals from within the organization who have been formally appointed with responsibility for implementing an intervention as coordinator, project manager, team leader, or other similar role. This role includes individuals from within the organization who have been formally appointed with responsibility for implementation. These leaders may or many not have explicit time dedicated to the task but they will be more effective if they have dedicated time rather than as a distraction on top of other job duties. For these leaders, implementation is “part of the job.” Internal implementation leaders may also act as a champion or opinion leader, or may simply execute a plan or organize meetings between key individuals. Whether or not these leaders play a dual-role (e.g., a project coordinator who is also a champion) depends on the degree of passion, creativity, and willingness to take risks.
Qualitative codebook guidelines
Include statements related to engagement strategies and outcomes, e.g., how the formally appointed internal implementation leader became engaged with the innovation and what their role is in implementation. Note: Although both strategies and outcomes are coded here, the outcome of efforts to engage staff determines the rating, i.e. if there are repeated attempts to engage an implementation leader that are not successful, or if the implementation leader leaves the organization and this role is vacant, the construct receives a negative rating. In addition, you may also want to code the "quality" of the implementation leader here - their capabilities, motivation, and skills, i.e. how good they are at their job, and this affects the rating as well.
Exclude or double code statements regarding leadership engagement to Leadership Engagement if an implementation leader is also an organizational leader, e.g., if a director of primary care takes the lead in implementing a new treatment guideline.
Implementation Leadership Scale
Source: Article Citation
Abstract: BACKGROUND: In healthcare and allied healthcare settings, leadership that supports effective implementation of evidenced-based practices (EBPs) is a critical concern. However, there are no empirically validated measures to assess implementation leadership. This paper describes the development, factor structure, and initial reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of a very brief measure of implementation leadership: the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS). METHODS: Participants were 459 mental health clinicians working in 93 different outpatient mental health programs in Southern California, USA. Initial item development was supported as part of a two United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) studies focused on developing implementation leadership training and implementation measure development. Clinician work group/team-level data were randomly assigned to be utilized for an exploratory factor analysis (n = 229; k = 46 teams) or for a confirmatory factor analysis (n = 230; k = 47 teams). The confirmatory factor analysis controlled for the multilevel, nested data structure. Reliability and validity analyses were then conducted with the full sample. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 12-item scale with four subscales representing proactive leadership, knowledgeable leadership, supportive leadership, and perseverant leadership. Confirmatory factor analysis supported an a priori higher order factor structure with subscales contributing to a single higher order implementation leadership factor. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: The ILS is a brief and efficient measure of unit level leadership for EBP implementation. The availability of the ILS will allow researchers to assess strategic leadership for implementation in order to advance understanding of leadership as a predictor of organizational context for implementation. The ILS also holds promise as a tool for leader and organizational development to improve EBP implementation.
- ↑ Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE: A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008, 34:228-243.