Readiness for Implementation

From CFIR Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Readiness for Implementation
Taxonomy
Domain
Inner Setting
Siblings
Culture
Implementation Climate
Networks & Communications
Readiness for Implementation
Structural Characteristics
Children
Access to Knowledge & Information
Available Resources
Leadership Engagement
Measurement maturity
Quantitative tools


Contents

Version 1.0

Tangible and immediate indicators of organizational commitment to its decision to implement an intervention.

Description

Tangible and immediate indicators of organizational commitment to its decision to implement an intervention, consisting of three subconstructs (leadership engagement, available resources, and access to information and knowledge). Implementation readiness is differentiated from implementation climate in the literature by its inclusion of specific tangible and immediate indicators of organizational commitment to its decision to implement an intervention. Additional File 4 provides more discussion and rationale for the constellation and grouping of sub-constructs for implementation climate and readiness for implementation.

Rationale for inclusion

Tangible and immediate indicators of organizational commitment to its decision to implement an intervention, consisting of 3 sub-constructs. Implementation readiness is differentiated from implementation climate in the literature, by its inclusion of specific tangible and immediate indicators of organizational commitment to its decision to implement an intervention. Implementation readiness is differentiated from implementation climate by its inclusion of more tangible and even more immediate indicators of organizational commitment to its decision to implement an intervention. The term “readiness for change” has a broad range of conceptualizations in the literature. Simpson and colleagues developed an organizational readiness for change measurement instrument that includes 18 organizational domains[1]. The PARiHS model describes readiness for change in terms of setting, culture, leadership, and evaluation[2][3]. Greenhalgh, et al include tension for change, innovation-systems fit, assessing implications, support and advocacy, time and resources, and capacity to evaluate in their “system readiness for innovation” domain[4](page 607-608). In addition, both the PARiHS model and Greenhalgh, et al describe “receptivity for change;” a related but not synonymous term. In the PARiHs model, it is included as a domain in the inner setting that indicates readiness for change while Greenhalgh, et al present “receptive context for change” as a general feature of organizations that include six over-arching constructs (e.g. strong leadership; page 607). We describe below, those constructs that contribute directly to an organization’s readiness for implementation: leadership engagement, available resources, and access to information and knowledge.

Extended Rationale button.png

Measurement

Qualitative codebook guidelines

Inclusion criteria

Include statements regarding the general level of readiness for implementation.



Exclusion criteria

Exclude statements regarding the general level of readiness for implementation that are captured in the sub-codes.



Quantitative measures

Attachments

References

  1. Simpson DD: A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. J Subst Abuse Treat 2002, 22:171-182.
  2. Rycroft-Malone J, A., Kitson G, Harvey B, McCormack K, Seers AT, Estabrooks C: Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. (Viewpoint). Quality and Safety in Health Care 2002, 11:174-180.
  3. Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A: Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARIHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci 2008, 3:1.
  4. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
Personal tools
Etiquette and Help