Trialability

From CFIR Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Trialability
Taxonomy
Domain
Intervention Characteristics
Siblings
Adaptability
Complexity
Cost
Design Quality & Packaging
Evidence Strength & Quality
Intervention Source
Relative Advantage
Trialability
Measurement maturity
Quantitative tools


Contents

Version 1.0

The ability to test the intervention on a small scale in the organization, and to be able to reverse course (undo implementation) if warranted.

Description

The ability to test the intervention on a small scale in the organization[1], and to be able to reverse course (undo implementation) if warranted[2]. The ability to trial is a key feature of the plan-do-study-act quality improvement cycle that allows users to find ways to increase coordination to manage interdependence[3]. Piloting allows individuals and groups to build experience and expertise, and time to reflect upon and test the intervention[4], and usability testing (with staff and patients) promotes successful adaptation of the intervention[2].

Rationale for inclusion

The ability to test the intervention on a small scale in their own organization[1] and reverse course (undo implementation) if warranted[2].

The ability to pilot an intervention has a strong positive association with effective implementation[1]. Based on trial results, the organization may decide to go forward with full implementation or retool and modify as needed. Also, a trial will provide needed information about how best to implement to other units to minimize workflow disruption. Pilot testing is a key feature of the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement cycle which allows users to find ways to increase coordination to manage interdependence[3]. Piloting allows individuals and groups to build experience and expertise, and time to reflect upon and test the intervention[4][5]. Users need to be able to stop the intervention and reverse its effects if it causes problems or is ineffective[2].

Measurement

Qualitative codebook guidelines

Inclusion criteria

Include statements related to whether the site piloted the innovation in the past or has plans to in the future, and comments about whether they believe it is (im)possible to conduct a pilot. Include descriptions of smaller trials of the innovation before widespread implementation or use of information from local or regional pilots.

  • “There is no way we can pilot something like that.”
  • "I think it would take me a while to get there, but knowing we are able to try it, I think I would certainly be willing to try with some help, trying a few patients on it as long as I know they’ve got follow-up care."



Exclusion criteria

Exclude or double code descriptions of use of results from local or regional pilots to Evidence Strength & Quality.



Quantitative measures

Attachments

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 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.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE: A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety/Joint Commission Resources 2008, 34:228-243.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Leeman J, Baernholdt M, Sandelowski M: Developing a theorybased taxonomy of Methods for implementing change in practice. J Adv Nurs 2007, 58:191-200.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Rycroft-Malone JA, 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.
  5. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B: Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care 1998, 7:149-158.
Personal tools
Etiquette and Help