BACKGROUND: Despite increased interest in learning health systems (LHS), a paucity of guidance and tools for evaluating LHS implementation exists. To address this, we aim to undertake a scoping review on existing tools and evaluation of exemplars of LHS implementation.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies within Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in-process that described (1) the evaluation of the implementation of an operating LHS or (2) the development of a framework or tool to facilitate this evaluation. Anima, basic research, abstracts, non-English language articles, and publications before 2018 were excluded. All study designs were considered.
RESULTS: From 1300 studies initially identified, 4 were eligible, revealing three tools with nine implementation evaluation examples. The identified tools shared constructs which were evaluated, including: Stakeholders, Data, Research Evidence, Implementation, and Sociotechnical Infrastructure. However, there was divergence in evaluation methodology. Tools ranged from a five-point numerical rating system for process maturity with a radar chart called the Network Maturity Grid (NMG); the Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) LHS Logic Model, which provides a broad list of constructs and sample measures relevant to LHS operations; and finally LADDERS, a simple tool or form-based template designed for consistent evaluation over time. The NMG tool was the most mature in terms of adaptation and adoption. Notably, two (NMG and the KPWA LHS Logic Model) out of three tools conceptualized the LHS as a suite of processes and devised tools were processes that linked these constructs.
UNASSIGNED: The evaluation of LHS implementation remains an under explored area of investigation, as this scoping review found only three tools for LHS implementation evaluation. Our findings indicate a need for further empirical research in this area and suggest early consensus in constructs that need to be considered during evaluation.

Paediatric patients with complex or acute conditions may require a central venous access device, however, almost one-third of these devices have associated complications (e.g. infections). Implementation of evidence-based practices regarding central venous access devices can reduce and potentially prevent complications.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to explore recent interventional research in CVAD management through an implementation lens.
METHODS: This scoping review used the Arksey and O\'Malley framework. Studies were included if they were written in English, published in 2012 to July 2023, involved children and were relevant to the study aims. Risk of bias was appraised by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
METHODS: Searches were undertaken in EMBASE, CINAHL (Ebsco), PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL).
RESULTS: Of the 1769 studies identified in a systematic search, 46 studies were included. Studies mostly focused on health professionals and central venous access device maintenance and had quantitative pre-post study designs. Adherence to implementation frameworks was lacking, with many studies employing quality improvement approaches. Implementation strategies were typically multipronged, using health-professional education, bundles and working groups. Bundle compliance and reductions in central line-associated bloodstream infections were the most featured outcomes, with most studies primarily focusing on effectiveness outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Translation of evidence-based practices to the clinical setting is difficult and current adoption of implementation frameworks (apart from \'quality improvement\') is limited. Implementation strategies are diverse and dependent on the local context, and study outcomes typically focus on the effectiveness of the physical intervention, rather than measuring the implementation effort itself.
UNASSIGNED: Future intervention research requires a more uniform and deliberate application of implementation frameworks and strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater exploration of relationships between frameworks and strategies and implementation and service outcomes is required to increase understanding of their role in maximizing resources to improve health care. Adhered to best reporting guidelines as per PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018).
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.

BACKGROUND: In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit.
METHODS: Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

BACKGROUND: Handovers of care are potentially hazardous moments in the patient journey and can lead to harm if conducted poorly. Through a national survey of surgical doctors in Ireland, this paper assesses contemporary surgical handover practices and evaluates barriers and facilitators of effective handover.
METHODS: After ethical approval and pre-testing with a representative sample, a cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs) working in the Republic of Ireland. A mixed-methods approach was used, combining data using triangulation design.
RESULTS: A total of 201 responses were received (18.5%). Most participants were senior house officers or senior registrars (49.7% and 37.3%). Most people (85.1%) reported that information received during handover was missing or incorrect at least some of the time. One-third of respondents reported that a near-miss had occurred as a result of handover within the past three months, and handover-related errors resulted in minor (16.9%), moderate (4.9%), or major (1.5%) harm. Only 11.4% had received any formal training. Reported barriers to handover included negative attitudes, a lack of institutional support, and competing clinical activities. Facilitators included process standardisation, improved access to resources, and staff engagement.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical NCHDs working in Irish hospitals reported poor compliance with international best practice for handover and identified potential harms. Process standardisation, appropriate staff training, and the provision of necessary handover-related resources is required at a national level to address this significant patient safety concern.

To prepare healthcare organizations and patients/families to be equally ready to become partners in co-designing healthcare policy, practices, and improvements, there is a need to (1) understand how \"co-design ready\" organizations and their staff and care providers are to co-design health care policies, practices, and improvements with patients and families; (2) understand how prepared patients and families, as users of the health system, are to step into co-designer roles with confidence so that their voices will be heard as they influence the development or changes to improve healthcare system policies, services, practices, and products; (3) anticipate and/or address challenges with meeting the expectations of what is involved with the co-design approach, including with recruiting, preparing, and training care setting leaders, staff/care providers, and patient/family advisors; (4) ensure care settings provided appropriate tools and resources to support co-design; and (5) guide the shift in culture from engagement to co-design. Recommendations for enabling co-design in care settings include providing an orientation and preparation workshop and guide/workbook. An example of an orientation and preparation workshop is shared.

A rising emphasis on patient involvement in clinical research and healthcare improvement has led to the steady incorporation of patients and caregivers into this work. However, interactional factors shaping recruitment processes are not well understood. In this paper, we present a qualitative analysis of interviews with twenty-six patients, family members, engagement staff and healthcare providers who are engaged in healthcare improvement work in the United States. We focus on how stakeholders account for recruitment decisions to participate in healthcare improvement work. We find that expressions of and judgments about patients\' and caregivers\' cultural health capital shape providers\' decisions to extend invitations to participate in healthcare improvement work. These findings extend current conceptualizations of cultural health capital beyond the clinical encounter to reveal factors shaping patient recruitment into healthcare improvement work. In theorizing how cultural health capital shapes action in this new setting, we found that healthcare providers, engagement staff, and patients/caregivers attended to different aspects of cultural health capital when accounting for why they extended or received a recruitment pitch. We further found that participating in healthcare improvement work led to a boost in cultural health capital for patients and caregivers, which they could use to develop transmissible forms of cultural health capital for less centrally involved patients and caregivers. Finally, we describe how participants in healthcare improvement collaboratives account for a lack of diversity among partners. These findings help us hypothesize the consequences of recruitment processes that rely on displays and judgments of cultural health capital and identify possibilities for change. Using the case of healthcare improvement work in Collaborative Learning Health Systems, our findings advance past work on cultural health capital in medical sociology by theorizing the role of cultural health capital in recruitment processes.

This literature review sought to identify and evaluate the current applications of artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) in spine surgery that can effectively guide clinical decision-making and surgical planning. By using specific keywords to maximize search sensitivity, a thorough literature research was conducted in several online databases: Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar, and the findings were filtered according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 46 studies met the requirements and were included in this review. According to this study, AI/ML models were sufficiently accurate with a mean overall value of 74.9%, and performed best at preoperative patient selection, cost prediction, and length of stay. Performance was also good at predicting functional outcomes and postoperative mortality. Regression analysis was the most frequently utilized application whereas deep learning/artificial neural networks had the highest sensitivity score (81.5%). Despite the relatively brief history of engagement with AI/ML, as evidenced by the fact that 77.5% of studies were published after 2018, the outcomes have been promising. In light of the Big Data era, the increasing prevalence of National Registries, and the wide-ranging applications of AI, such as exemplified by ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, California), it is highly likely that the field of spine surgery will gradually adopt and integrate AI/ML into its clinical practices. Consequently, it is of great significance for spine surgeons to acquaint themselves with the fundamental principles of AI/ML, as these technologies hold the potential for substantial improvements in overall patient care.

Healthcare delivery has become more complicated, particularly with the addition of digital tools and advanced technologies that can further exacerbate existing disparities. New approaches to solve complex, multi-faceted problems are needed. Human-centered design (HCD), also known as design thinking, is an innovative set of methods to develop solutions to these types of issues using collaborative, team-based, and empathetic approaches focused on end user experiences. Originally advanced in technology sectors, HCD has garnered growing attention in quality improvement, healthcare redesign, and public health and medical education. During the COVID-19 pandemic, our healthcare organization recognized notable differences in utilization of virtual (video-based) services among specific patient populations. In response, we mobilized, and using HCD, we collectively brainstormed ideas, rapidly developed prototypes, and iteratively adapted solutions to work toward addressing this digital divide and clinic and systems-level struggles with improving and maintaining digital health access. HCD approaches create a cohesive team-based structure that permits the dismantling of organizational hierarchies and departmental silos. Here we share lessons learned on implementing HCD into clinical care settings and how HCD can result in the development of site-specific, patient-centered innovations to address access disparities and to improve digital health equity.

Perinatal mental health disorders (PMHD) remain often undetected, undiagnosed, and untreated with variable access to perinatal mental health care (PMHC). To guide the design of optimal PMHC (i.e., coproduced with persons with lived experience [PLEs]), this qualitative participatory study explored the experiences, views, and expectations of PLEs, obstetric providers (OP), childcare health providers (CHPs), and mental health providers (MHPs) on PMHC and the care of perinatal depression.
We conducted nine focus groups and 24 individual interviews between December 2020 and May 2022 for a total number of 84 participants (24 PLEs; 30 OPs; 11 CHPs; and 19 MHPs). The PLEs group included women with serious mental illness (SMI) or autistic women who had contact with perinatal health services. We recruited PLEs through social media and a center for psychiatric rehabilitation, and health providers (HPs) through perinatal health networks. We used the inductive six-step process by Braun and Clarke for the thematic analysis.
We found some degree of difference in the identified priorities between PLEs (e.g., personal recovery, person-centered care) and HPs (e.g., common culture, communication between providers, and risk management). Personal recovery in PMHD corresponded to the CHIME framework, that is, connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, and empowerment. Recovery-supporting relations and peer support contributed to personal recovery. Other factors included changes in the socio-cultural conception of the peripartum, challenging stigma (e.g., integrating PMH into standard perinatal healthcare), and service integration.
This analysis generated novel insights into how to improve PMHC for all users including those with SMI or autism.

Two polyclinics in Singapore modified systems and trained health professionals to provide person-centred Care and Support Planning (CSP) for people with diabetes within a clinical trial. We aimed to investigate health professionals\' perspectives on CSP to inform future developments.
Qualitative research including 23 semi-structured interviews with 13 health professionals and 3 co-ordinators. Interpretive analysis, including considerations of how different understandings, enactments, experiences and evaluative judgements of CSP clustered across health professionals, and potential causal links between them.
Both polyclinic teams introduced CSP and sustained it through COVID-19 disruptions. The first examples health professionals gave of CSP \'going well\' all involved patients who came prepared, motivated and able to modify behaviours to improve their biomedical markers, but health professionals also said that they only occasionally saw such patients in practice. Health professionals\' accounts of how they conducted CSP conversations varied: some interpretations and reported enactments were less clearly aligned with the developers\' person-centred aspirations than others. Health professionals brought different communication skill repertoires to their encounters and responded variably to challenges to CSP that arose from: the linguistic and educational diversity of patients in this polyclinic context; the cultural shift that CSP involved; workload pressures; organisational factors that limited relational and informational continuity of care; and policies promoting biomedical measures as key indicators of healthcare quality. While all participants saw potential in CSP, they differed in the extent to which they recognised relational and experiential benefits of CSP (beyond biomedical benefits), and their recommendations for continuing its use beyond the clinical trial were contingent on several considerations. Our analysis shows how narrower and broader interpretive emphases and initial skill repertoires can interact with situational challenges and respectively constrain or extend health professionals\' ability to refine their skills with experiential learning, reduce or enhance the potential benefits of CSP, and erode or strengthen motivation to use CSP.
Health professionals\' interpretations of CSP, along with their communication skills, interact in complex ways with other features of healthcare systems and diverse patient-circumstance scenarios. They warrant careful attention in efforts to implement and evaluate person-centred support for people with long-term conditions.