Evidence-based interventions to improve health care and medical education face multiple complex barriers to adoption and success. Implementation science focuses on the period following research dissemination, which is necessary but insufficient to address important gaps in clinician performance and patient outcomes. This article describes the forces on health care institutions, medical schools, physician clinicians, and trainees that have created the imperative to design educational interventions to address the gap between evidence and practice. These forces include accreditation, certification, licensure, and regulatory and research funding initiatives focused on improving the quality of health professions education and clinical practice. Medical educators must expand their focus on “what to change” to include “how to change” in order to prepare health care professionals and institutions to effectively adopt new evidence-based practices to improve patient, and ultimately population, outcomes.
GlasgowREVinsonCChambersDKhouryMJKaplanRMHunterC. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:1274-1281.
2.
EcclesMPMittmanBS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):1-3.
DearingJWKeeKF. Historical roots of dissemination and implementation science. In: BrownsonRCColditzGAProctorEK, eds. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2012:55-71.
5.
WilsonPMPetticrewMCalnanMWNazarethI. Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci. 2010;5:91.
6.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
7.
RegehrG. Trends in medical education research. Acad Med. 2004;79:939-947.
8.
KaufmanDM. Applying educational theory in practice. BMJ. 2003;326:213-216.
9.
Helmsley-BrownJSharpC. How do teachers use research findings to improve their professional practice?Oxford Rev Educ. 2003;29:449-471.
10.
NorrisSPPhillipsLMMacnabJS. The gold standard and knowing what to do. In: ShelleyMCYoreLDHandB, eds. Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. New York, NY: Springer; 2009:603-620.
11.
HuntDMigdalMEaglenRBarzanskyBSabalisR. The unintended consequences of clarity: reviewing the actions of the liaison committee on medical education before and after the reformatting of accreditation standards. Acad Med. 2012;87:560-566.
12.
NascaTJPhilibertIBrighamTFlynnTC. The next GME accreditation system—rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1051-1056.
13.
JacobsonNButterillDGoeringP. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8:94-99.
14.
ChaudhryHJTalmageLAAlguirePCCainFEWatersSRhyneJA. Maintenance of licensure: supporting a physician’s commitment to lifelong learning. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:287-289.
15.
FragerMSScherzHEckA. Physician quality and maintenance of certification. JAMA. 2012;308:2562.
16.
ShojaniaKGSilverILevinsonW. Continuing medical education and quality improvement: a match made in heaven?Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:305-308.
17.
RegnierKKopelowMLaneDAldenE. Accreditation for learning and change: quality and improvement as the outcome. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2005;25:174-182.
18.
AschSMKerrEAKeeseyJ. Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care?N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1147-1156.
IversNJamtvedtGFlottorpS. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD000259.
21.
FungCHLimYWMattkeSDambergCShekellePG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:111-123.
22.
SnyderLNeubauerRL; American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee. Pay-for-performance principles that promote patient-centered care: an ethics manifesto. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:792-794.
23.
SiaCTonnigesTFOsterhusETabaS. History of the medical home concept. Pediatrics. 2004;113(5 suppl):1473-1478.
TakachM. Reinventing Medicaid: state innovations to qualify and pay for patient-centered medical homes show promising results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:1325-1334.
26.
SolbergLIAscheSEFontainePFlottemeschTJPawlsonLGScholleSH. Relationship of clinic medical home scores to quality and patient experience. J Ambul Care Manage. 2011;34:57-66.
27.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Quality and patient safety resources. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/pay4per.htm. Accessed December 29, 2015.
28.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National Guideline Clearinghouse. http://guideline.gov. Accessed December 30, 2015.
29.
KhuriSF. The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery. 2005;138:837-843.
ChassinMRLoebJMSchmaltzSPWachterRM. Accountability measures—using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:683-688.
35.
MooreDEGreenJSJaySJLeistJCMaitlandFM. Creating a new paradigm for CME: seizing opportunities within the health care revolution. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 1994;14:4-31.
36.
MillerGE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 suppl):S63-S67.
37.
HavenCBellmanPJayachandranKWatersS. Measuring higher-level outcomes. Alliance for CME Almanac. 2005;27(10):1-4.
38.
MooreDEJrGreenJSGallisHA. Achieving desired results and improved outcomes: integrating planning and assessment throughout learning activities. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29:1-15.
