Volume 19, Issue 5 pp. 915-924
Original Article

Testing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research on health care innovations from South Yorkshire

Irene Ilott DipCOT BA MEd PhD

Corresponding Author

Irene Ilott DipCOT BA MEd PhD

Knowledge Translation Project Lead, CLAHRC-South Yorkshire, Sheffield, UK

Correspondence

Dr Irene Ilott

CLAHRC-South Yorkshire

11 Broomfield Road

Sheffield S10 2SE

UK

E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Kate Gerrish B.Nurs MSc PhD RN RM

Kate Gerrish B.Nurs MSc PhD RN RM

Professor of Nursing Research, University of Sheffield/Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Andrew Booth BA Dip Lib MSc MCLIP

Andrew Booth BA Dip Lib MSc MCLIP

Reader in Evidence Based Information Practice and Director of Information, Information Resources Group, HEDS, ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Becky Field BA (Hons) PGDip (OT)

Becky Field BA (Hons) PGDip (OT)

Sheffield Health and Social Care Foundation NHS Trust, Sheffield Community Brain Injury Rehabilitation Team, Sheffield, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 July 2012
Citations: 55

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives

There is an international imperative to implement research into clinical practice to improve health care. Understanding the dynamics of change requires knowledge from theoretical and empirical studies. This paper presents a novel approach to testing a new meta theoretical framework: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Method

The utility of the Framework was evaluated using a post hoc, deductive analysis of 11 narrative accounts of innovation in health care services and practice from England, collected in 2010. A matrix, comprising the five domains and 39 constructs of the Framework was developed to examine the coherence of the terminology, to compare results across contexts and to identify new theoretical developments.

Results

The Framework captured the complexity of implementation across 11 diverse examples, offering theoretically informed, comprehensive coverage. The Framework drew attention to relevant points in individual cases together with patterns across cases; for example, all were internally developed innovations that brought direct or indirect patient advantage. In 10 cases, the change was led by clinicians. Most initiatives had been maintained for several years and there was evidence of spread in six examples. Areas for further development within the Framework include sustainability and patient/public engagement in implementation.

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that this conceptual framework has the potential to offer useful insights, whether as part of a situational analysis or by developing context-specific propositions for hypothesis testing. Such studies are vital now that innovation is being promoted as core business for health care.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.