Trialability

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

Domain: Intervention Characteristics

Siblings

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][5], and usability testing (with staff and patients) promotes successful adaptation of the intervention [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. Users need to be able to stop the intervention and reverse its effects if it causes problems or is ineffective [2].

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.

Check out SIRC’s Instrument Review project and published systematic review protocol, which has cataloged over 400 implementation-related measures. 

Note: As we become aware of measures, we will post them here. Please contact us with updates.

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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 Care2002, 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.