Evidence brief: Evaluation of a tool for measuring practice change in healthcare settings

Abstract

Background Research growth at a regional Australian public health service prompted a search for ways to measure impact. Clinician researchers developed a one-page document defining the clinical problem, a summary of the evidence and a solution to the problem. The document was named Evidence Brief (EB) and was initially a means of communicating practice changes from allied health research. This study evaluates the EB to determine whether it can be a metric for translation. Methods A multiple case study design was used. Four cases were chosen, three from completed EBs and one from a quality improvement project. Each case was investigated via document review, including EB, published journal articles, policies, or guidelines, plus semi-structured interviews conducted with relevant stakeholders. Analysis was conducted in four stages: case context and description, within-case analysis, cross-case analysis and interpretation and evaluation using thematic analysis. Results Document analysis confirmed practice change, rationale and evidence for change, the instigator of change and enablers. Cross-case analysis identified commonalities such as an expanded scope of practice, clinician-led change, and the inclusion of salient stakeholders to ensure that translation occurred. Differences included the timing of funding and the reach of change. Conclusion EBs effectively communicate practice change. Each EB describes a unit of change resulting from research or quality improvement projects, suggesting its usefulness as a measure of change. A modified version of the EB is proposed as a starting point for future impact assessments to measure longer-term impacts.