This mixed-method feasibility study conducted in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, aimed to explore clinical practices around the identification of patients with refractory epilepsy and referral from primary care to Tertiary Epilepsy Centers. The perceptions of general practitioners, neurologists, and adults living with refractory epilepsy were considered. Methods: Fifty-two data collection events were achieved through 22 semi-structured interviews with six neurologists and 12 adults who currently have, or have had refractory epilepsy, and four family members, 10 clinical observations of patient consultations and 20 surveys with general practitioners. A thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data alongside assessment of observational fieldnotes and survey data. Findings: Two main themes emerged: 1) Patient healthcare pathways and care experiences highlighted the complex and deeply contextualized experiences of both patients and healthcare professionals, from first identification of people's seizures, in primary and community care settings, to referral to Tertiary Epilepsy Centers, shedding light on a fragmented, nonstandardized referral process, influenced by both individual and sharedcare practices. 2) Factors impacting referrals and patient pathways indicated that onward referral to a Tertiary Epilepsy Center is affected by the knowledge, or the lack thereof, of healthcare professionals regarding treatment options. Barriers include limited person-centered care, shared decision-making, and refractory epilepsy education for healthcare professionals, which can delay patients' disease identification and can hinder speedy referral pathways and processes, in Australia for up to 17 years. In addition, person-centered communication around care pathways is affected by relationships between clinicians, patients, and family members. Conclusion:This study has identified a noticeable lack of standardized care across epilepsy-related healthcare sectors, which recognizes a need for developing and implementing clearer epilepsy-related guidelines and Continuing Professional Development in the primary and community care settings. This, however, requires greater collaboration and commitment in the primary, community, and tertiary care sectors to address the ongoing misconceptions around professional roles and responsibilities to optimize shared-care practices. Ultimately, prioritizing person-centered care on both patients' and professionals' agendas, in order to improve satisfaction with care experiences of people living with complex epilepsy.

IntroductionValue-based healthcare delivery models have emerged to address the unprecedented pressure on long-term health system performance and sustainability and to respond to the changing needs and expectations of patients. Implementing and scaling the benefits from these care delivery models to achieve large-system transformation are challenging and require consideration of complexity and context. Realist studies enable researchers to explore factors beyond ‘what works’ towards more nuanced understanding of ‘what tends to work for whom under which circumstances’. This research proposes a realist study of the implementation approach for seven large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia, to elucidate how different implementation strategies and processes stimulate the uptake, adoption, fidelity and adherence of initiatives to achieve sustainable impacts across a variety of contexts.Methods and analysisThis exploratory, sequential, mixed methods realist study followed RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) reporting standards for realist studies. Stage 1 will formulate initial programme theories from review of existing literature, analysis of programme documents and qualitative interviews with programme designers, implementation support staff and evaluators. Stage 2 envisages testing and refining these hypothesised programme theories through qualitative interviews with local hospital network staff running initiatives, and analyses of quantitative data from the programme evaluation, hospital administrative systems and an implementation outcome survey. Stage 3 proposes to produce generalisable middle-range theories by synthesising data from context–mechanism–outcome configurations across initiatives. Qualitative data will be analysed retroductively and quantitative data will be analysed to identify relationships between the implementation strategies and processes, and implementation and programme outcomes. Mixed methods triangulation will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by Macquarie University (Project ID 23816) and Hunter New England (Project ID 2020/ETH02186) Human Research Ethics Committees. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be fed back to partner organisations and roundtable discussions with other health jurisdictions will be held, to share learnings.

Background Studies of clinical effectiveness have demonstrated the many benefits of programmes that avoid unnecessary hospitalisations. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the factors influencing implementation of these programmes to ensure these benefits are realised across different healthcare contexts and settings. Numerous factors may act as determinants of implementation success or failure (facilitators and barriers), by either obstructing or enabling changes in healthcare delivery. Understanding the relationships between these determinants is needed to design and tailor strategies that integrate effective programmes into routine practice. Our aims were to describe the implementation determinants for hospital avoidance programmes for people with chronic conditions and the relationships between these determinants. Methods An electronic search of four databases was conducted from inception to October 2019, supplemented by snowballing for additional articles. Data were extracted using a structured data extraction tool and risk of bias assessed using the Hawker Tool. Thematic synthesis was undertaken to identify determinants of implementation success or failure for hospital avoidance programmes for people with chronic conditions, which were categorised according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The relationships between these determinants were also mapped. Results The initial search returned 3537 articles after duplicates were removed. After title and abstract screening, 123 articles underwent full-text review. Thirteen articles (14 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Thematic synthesis yielded 23 determinants of implementation across the five CFIR domains. ‘Availability of resources’, ‘compatibility and fit’, and ‘engagement of interprofessional team’ emerged as the most prominent determinants across the included studies. The most interconnected implementation determinants were the ‘compatibility and fit’ of interventions and ‘leadership influence’ factors. Conclusions Evidence is emerging for how chronic condition hospital avoidance programmes can be successfully implemented and scaled across different settings and contexts. This review provides a summary of key implementation determinants and their relationships. We propose a hypothesised causal loop diagram to represent the relationship between determinants within a complex adaptive system. Trial registration PROSPERO 162812

DesignRealist synthesis.Study backgroundLarge-scale hospital improvement initiatives can standardise healthcare across multiple sites but results are contingent on the implementation strategies that complement them. The benefits of these implemented interventions are rarely able to be replicated in different contexts. Realist studies explore this phenomenon in depth by identifying underlying context–mechanism–outcome interactions.ObjectivesTo review implementation strategies used in large-scale hospital initiatives and hypothesise initial programme theories for how they worked across different contexts.MethodsAn iterative, four-step process was applied. Step 1 explored the concepts inherent in large-scale interventions using database searches and snowballing. Step 2 identified strategies used in their implementation. Step 3 identified potential initial programme theories that may explain strategies’ mechanisms. Step 4 focused on one strategy-theory pairing to develop and test context–mechanism–outcome hypotheses. Data was drawn from searches (March–May 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and CINAHL, snowballed from key papers, implementation support websites and the expertise of the research team and experts. Inclusion criteria: reported implementation of a large-scale, multisite hospital intervention. RAMESES reporting standards were followed.ResultsConcepts were identified from 51 of 381 articles. Large-scale hospital interventions were characterised by a top–down approach, external and internal support and use of evidence-based interventions. We found 302 reports of 28 different implementation strategies from 31 reviews (from a total of 585). Formal theories proposed for the implementation strategies included Diffusion of Innovation, and Organisational Readiness Theory. Twenty-three context–mechanism–outcome statements for implementation strategies associated with planning and assessment activities were proposed. Evidence from the published literature supported the hypothesised programme theories and were consistent with Organisational Readiness Theory’s tenets.ConclusionThis paper adds to the literature exploring why large-scale hospital interventions are not always successfully implemented and suggests 24 causative mechanisms and contextual factors that may drive outcomes in the planning and assessment stage.

Implementation science in healthcare aims to understand how to get evidence into practice. Once this is achieved in one setting, it becomes increasingly difficult to replicate elsewhere. The problem is often attributed to differences in context that influence how and whether implementation strategies work. We argue that realist research paradigms provide a useful framework to express the effect of contextual factors within implementation strategy causal processes. Realist studies are theory-driven evaluations that focus on understanding how and why interventions work under different circumstances. They consider the interaction between contextual circumstances, theoretical mechanisms of change and the outcomes they produce, to arrive at explanations of conditional causality (i.e., what tends to work, for whom, under what circumstances). This Commentary provides example applications using preliminary findings from a large realist implementation study of system-wide value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia. If applied judiciously, realist implementation studies may represent a sound approach to help optimise delivery of the right care in the right setting and at the right time.