The Big Tent

CTSI 2016 NIH Renewal Proposal Launchpad

UCSF Center for Innovation Practice: Dissemination and Diffusion

Proposal Status: 

1. Scale and significance: Creative and groundbreaking T-2-T-3 Innovations in health care and community delivery have been developed and tested within many UCSF settings. While some successes have been achieved, the campus has not been able to leverage the full power of these innovations; limitations in the scalability of even the strongest and best-tested innovations occur. Many of the innovations are disseminated and potentially exported externally to UCSF, but few systematic approaches exist to internally marshal innovation for internal consumption in potential “next circle” of settings for replications and further testing, adaptation, and cultural refinements. Few systematic approaches for collecting information on these “home-grown” initiatives exist, precluding “mindful” and meaningful expansion into other “neighborhoods”.

2. Current Approaches (nationally). Our “distributive” nature lends to lost opportunities for cross-fertilization, delays as new initiatives are tested, lack of recognition of previous institutional history that could help avoid common, but time- and expense-intense errors. National innovation “explosion” being tested nationally could have great utility for UCSF/UC-wide, in an effort to make information more readily available.

3. Potential Approach: Establish a campus-wide Innovation Bank. Readily available and consistent information on the innovations, including how they were established, funded, who was involved, how did the model evolve, outcomes, evidence of effectiveness (i.e., cost-savings, increased patient satisfaction, improved use of existing resources) has not been centralized as we aim to develop additional quality and cost-reduction improvements. Additional strategies are needed for sharing the results of the innovations: short videos, podcasts, retreat briefings, panels. A “concierge” element, matching individuals ready to implement new initiatives with those who might have had relevant experience. Evaluation of the process of matching, as well as utility of the repository, is needed. The clearinghouse could also help in the diffusion of practice for those interested in identifying “works in progress”, wherein the innovation is still in the initial process of implementation. “Crowd-sourcing” could be tapped, contributing to ideas, in real time.

4. Partners: An Advisory Board comprised of Clinical Chairs would guide the development and implementation of the repository; proposed activities would also coordinate with the Implementation Science endeavor, Center for Healthcare Value, etc. Other CTSA/UCOP could participate once the initial resource is launched at UCSF.

5. Projected Impact: A collective fund, supported in part by the Clinical Departments, Schools, and Medical Center, would help create an “incentive” matching fund to implement innovations (UCSF and elsewhere) that have been shown to have success in improving quality, safety, outcomes, cost containment, and patient satisfaction. A process for applying for funds (building on campus efforts in Implementation Sciences) will be established and a review panel will select prioritized innovations, continuing to monitor and provide oversight as the replications are implemented. Leveraging innovations that work could help reduce substantial medical costs.


What is the scale of budget and/or effort that might support this Center?

Commenting is closed.