VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Feb 11;20(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-4926-z.
Organizational readiness assessments have a history of being developed as important support tools for successful implementation. However, it remains unclear how best to operationalize readiness across varied projects or settings. We conducted a synthesis and content analysis of published readiness instruments to compare how investigators have operationalized the concept of organizational readiness for change.
We identified readiness assessments using a systematic review and update search. We mapped individual assessment items to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which identifies five domains affecting implementation (outer setting, inner setting, intervention characteristics, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process) and multiple constructs within each domain.
Of 1370 survey items, 897 (68%) mapped to the CFIR domain of inner setting, most commonly related to constructs of readiness for implementation (n = 220); networks and communication (n = 207); implementation climate (n = 204); structural characteristics (n = 139); and culture (n = 93). Two hundred forty-two items (18%) mapped to characteristics of individuals (mainly other personal attributes [n = 157] and self-efficacy [n = 52]); 80 (6%) mapped to outer setting; 51 (4%) mapped to implementation process; 40 (3%) mapped to intervention characteristics; and 60 (4%) did not map to CFIR constructs. Instruments were typically tailored to specific interventions or contexts.
Available readiness instruments predominantly focus on contextual factors within the organization and characteristics of individuals, but the specificity of most assessment items suggests a need to tailor items to the specific scenario in which an assessment is fielded. Readiness assessments must bridge the gap between measuring a theoretical construct and factors of importance to a particular implementation.
组织准备度评估作为成功实施的重要支持工具已有一定历史。然而,在不同项目或环境中如何最好地实施准备度仍不清楚。我们对已发表的准备度评估工具进行了综合和内容分析,以比较研究人员如何将组织变革准备度的概念付诸实践。
我们通过系统回顾和更新搜索确定了准备度评估。我们将各个评估项目映射到实施研究综合框架(CFIR)上,该框架确定了影响实施的五个领域(外部环境、内部环境、干预特性、个体特征和实施过程)以及每个领域内的多个结构。
在 1370 个调查项目中,有 897 个(68%)映射到 CFIR 的内部环境领域,最常见的是与实施准备度的结构相关(n=220);网络和沟通(n=207);实施氛围(n=204);结构特征(n=139);和文化(n=93)。242 个项目(18%)映射到个体特征(主要是其他个人属性[n=157]和自我效能[n=52]);80 个项目(6%)映射到外部环境;51 个项目(4%)映射到实施过程;40 个项目(3%)映射到干预特性;60 个项目(4%)未映射到 CFIR 结构。这些工具通常针对特定的干预措施或环境进行了定制。
现有的准备度评估工具主要集中在组织内部的环境因素和个体特征上,但大多数评估项目的特异性表明,需要根据评估现场的具体情况来定制项目。准备度评估必须弥合衡量理论结构和对特定实施重要因素之间的差距。