The nearly complete absence of the brand is strange. Not long ago, the company dominated the mobile phone market. At one time, seventy percent of phones in consumers’ hands were made by Nokia.
“And then,” to quote Agathe Christie, “there were none!”
Today, Nokia’s global market share is an anemic 3 %.
What happened? Here, the answer is no mystery. It was not a lack of position, talent, innovative ideas, or know-how. Rather, the company failed at implementation. Instead of rapidly adapting to changing conditions, it banked on its brand name and past success to carry it through. Vague considerations trumped concrete goals. Spreadsheets and speeches replaced communication, consensus-building, and commitment. The moral of the story? No matter how successful the brand or popular the product, implementation is hard.
Nowhere is this truer than in healthcare. Change is not only constant but accelerating. Each week, hundreds of research findings are published. Just as frequently, new technologies come online. All have the potential to do good, to improve the quality and outcome of treatment.
Research to date, for example, documents that seeking ongoing, formal feedback from those receiving behavioral health services as much as triples the effectiveness of the care offered, while simultaneously cutting the rate of drop out by 50%, and decreasing the risk of deterioration by 33%. Enough evidence has amassed to warrant the approach–known as, “Feedback Informed Treatment”–being listed on the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices.
Any yet, despite the massive amount of time and resources, agencies and practitioners devote to staying “up-to-date,” most implementation efforts struggle, and far too many fail–according to the available evidence, about 70-95% (a figure equivalent to the number of start-up businesses in the United States that belly up annually).
In their chapter in the new book, Feedback Informed Treatment in Clinical Practice, Randy Moss and Vanessa Mousavizadeh, provide step-by-step instructions, based on the latest research and real-world experience, for creating an organizational culture that supports implementation success. Recently, I had a chance to talk with Randy about the chpater. Whether you’ve got the book or not, I think you’ll find the knowledge and experience in the video below, helpful:
Online version of the Fidelity Readiness Index and Fidelity Measure
In the meantime, while on the subject of implementation, here’s a cool, electronic version of a tool you can use to track the progress of your efforts. It helps identify where you and your organization are in the process as well as identify and set goals in order to remain on track (it’s one of the reasons reviewers at SAMHSA gave our application perfect marks for implementation support). Thanks to my Danish colleague, Rasmus Kern for developing and making it available. By the way, the program contains both English and Danish versions (we’ll be releasing more languages soon).
Until next time,
Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence