Send to

Choose Destination
Implement Sci. 2016 Jun 3;11(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0445-z.

Explaining outcomes in major system change: a qualitative study of implementing centralised acute stroke services in two large metropolitan regions in England.

Author information

Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, Division of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
National Institute of Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Stroke and Vascular Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
National Institute of Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, London, UK.



Implementing major system change in healthcare is not well understood. This gap may be addressed by analysing change in terms of interrelated components identified in the implementation literature, including decision to change, intervention selection, implementation approaches, implementation outcomes, and intervention outcomes.


We conducted a qualitative study of two cases of major system change: the centralisation of acute stroke services in Manchester and London, which were associated with significantly different implementation outcomes (fidelity to referral pathway) and intervention outcomes (provision of evidence-based care, patient mortality). We interviewed stakeholders at national, pan-regional, and service-levels (nā€‰=ā€‰125) and analysed 653 documents. Using a framework developed for this study from the implementation science literature, we examined factors influencing implementation approaches; how these approaches interacted with the models selected to influence implementation outcomes; and their relationship to intervention outcomes.


London and Manchester's differing implementation outcomes were influenced by the different service models selected and implementation approaches used. Fidelity to the referral pathway was higher in London, where a 'simpler', more inclusive model was used, implemented with a 'big bang' launch and 'hands-on' facilitation by stroke clinical networks. In contrast, a phased approach of a more complex pathway was used in Manchester, and the network acted more as a platform to share learning. Service development occurred more uniformly in London, where service specifications were linked to financial incentives, and achieving standards was a condition of service launch, in contrast to Manchester. 'Hands-on' network facilitation, in the form of dedicated project management support, contributed to achievement of these standards in London; such facilitation processes were less evident in Manchester.


Using acute stroke service centralisation in London and Manchester as an example, interaction between model selected and implementation approaches significantly influenced fidelity to the model. The contrasting implementation outcomes may have affected differences in provision of evidence-based care and patient mortality. The framework used in this analysis may support planning and evaluating major system changes, but would benefit from application in different healthcare contexts.


Centralisation of healthcare; Evaluation; Implementation approaches; Implementation outcomes; Stroke care

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center