Rationale, aims, and objectives“Implementation science,” the scientific study of methods translating research findings into practical, useful outcomes, is contested and complex, with unpredictable use of results from routine clinical practice and different levels of continuing assessment of implementable interventions. The authors aim to reveal how implementation science is presented and understood in health services research contexts and clarify the foundational concepts: diffusion, dissemination, implementation, adoption, and sustainability, to progress knowledge in the field.MethodImplementation science models, theories, and frameworks are critiqued, and their value for laying the groundwork from which to implement a study's findings is emphasised. The paper highlights the challenges of turning research findings into practical outcomes that can be successfully implemented and the need for support from change agents, to ensure improvements to health care provision, health systems, and policy. The paper examines how researchers create implementation plans and what needs to be considered for study outputs to lead to sustainable interventions. This aspect needs clear planning, underpinned by appropriate theoretical paradigms that rigorously respond to a study's aims and objectives.ConclusionResearchers might benefit from a return to first principles in implementation science, whereby applications that result from research endeavours are both effective and readily disseminated and where interventions can be supported by appropriate health care personnel. These should be people specifically identified to promote change in service organisation, delivery, and policy that can be systematically evaluated over time, to ensure high‐quality, long‐term improvements to patients' health.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease, leading to death within an average of 2–3 years. A cure is yet to be found, and a single disease-modifying treatment has had a modest effect in slowing disease progression. Specialized multidisciplinary ALS care has been shown to extend survival and improve patients’ quality of life, by providing coordinated interprofessional care that seeks to address the complex needs of this patient group. This review examines the nature of specialized multidisciplinary care in ALS and draws on a broad range of evidence that has shaped current practice. The authors explain how multidisciplinary ALS care is delivered. The existing models of care, the role of palliative care within multidisciplinary ALS care, and the costs of formal and informal care are examined. Critical issues of ALS care are then discussed in the context of the support rendered by multidisciplinary-based care. The authors situate the patient and family as key stakeholders and decision makers in the multidisciplinary care network. Finally, the current challenges to the delivery of coordinated interprofessional care in ALS are explored, and the future of coordinated interprofessional care for people with ALS and their family caregivers is considered.

BackgroundPatients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are required to make decisions concerning quality of life and symptom management over the course of their disease. Clinicians perceive that patients’ ability to engage in timely decision-making is extremely challenging. However, we lack patient perspectives on this issue. This study aimed to explore patient experiences of ALS, and to identify factors influencing their decision-making in the specialized multidisciplinary care of ALS.MethodsAn exploratory study was conducted. Fourteen patients from two specialized ALS multidisciplinary clinics participated in semistructured interviews that were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed for emergent themes.ResultsDecision-making was influenced by three levels of factors, ie, structural, interactional, and personal. The structural factor was the decision-making environment of specialized multidisciplinary ALS clinics, which supported decision-making by providing patients with disease-specific information and specialized care planning. Interactional factors were the patient experiences of ALS, including patients’ reaction to the diagnosis, response to deterioration, and engagement with the multidisciplinary ALS team. Personal factors were patients’ personal philosophies, including their outlook on life, perceptions of control, and planning for the future. Patient approaches to decision-making reflected a focus on the present, rather than anticipating future progression of the disease and potential care needs.ConclusionDecision-making for symptom management and quality of life in ALS care is enhanced when the patient’s personal philosophy is supported by collaborative relationships between the patient and the multidisciplinary ALS team. Patients valued the support provided by the multidisciplinary team; however, their focus on living in the present diverged from the efforts of health professionals to prepare patients and their carers for the future. The challenge facing health professionals is how best to engage each patient in decision-making for their future needs, to bridge this gap.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to classify and describe the purpose of ward rounds, who attends each round and their role, and participants' perception of each other's role during the respective ward rounds. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review of face-to-face ward rounds in medical wards was conducted. Peer reviewed journals and government publications published between 2000 and 2014 were searched. Articles were classified according to the type of round described in the study. Purposes were identified using keywords in the description of why the round was carried out. Descriptions of tasks and interactions with team members defined participant roles. Findings - Eight round classifications were identified. The most common were the generalised ward; multidisciplinary; and consultant rounds. Multidisciplinary rounds were the most collaborative round. Medical officers were the most likely discipline to attend any round. There was limited reference to allied health clinicians and patient involvement on rounds. Perceptions attendees held of each other reiterated the need to continue to investigate teamwork. Practical implications - A collaborative approach to care planning can occur by ensuring clinicians and patients are aware of different ward round processes and their role in them. Originality/value - Analysis fulfils a gap in the literature by identifying and analysing the different ward rounds being undertaken in acute medical wards. It identifies the complexities in the long established routine hospital processes of the ward round.

BackgroundThe study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods to assess safety culture in hospitals, analyse the prevalence of these methods in the published research literature and examine the dimensions of safety culture captured through these processes.MethodsWe included studies reporting on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to assess safety culture in hospitals. The review was conducted using four academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) with studies from January 2008 to May 2020. A formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Study purpose, type of method and safety culture dimensions were extracted from all studies, coded thematically, and summarised narratively and using descriptive statistics where appropriate.ResultsA total of 694 studies were included. A third (n=244, 35.2%) had a descriptive or exploratory purpose, 225 (32.4%) tested relationships among variables, 129 (18.6%) evaluated an intervention, while 13.8% (n=96) had a methodological focus. Most studies exclusively used surveys (n=663; 95.5%), with 88 different surveys identified. Only 31 studies (4.5%) used qualitative or mixed methods. Thematic analysis identified 11 themes related to safety culture dimensions across the methods, with ‘Leadership’ being the most common. Qualitative and mixed methods approaches were more likely to identify additional dimensions of safety culture not covered by the 11 themes, including improvisation and contextual pressures.DiscussionWe assessed the extent to which safety culture dimensions mapped to specific quantitative and qualitative tools and methods of assessing safety culture. No single method or tool appeared to measure all 11 themes of safety culture. Risk of publication bias was high in this review. Future attempts to assess safety culture in hospitals should consider incorporating qualitative methods into survey studies to evaluate this multi-faceted construct.