Dataset Information

Examining 'institutional entrepreneurship' in healthcare redesign and improvement through comparative case study research: a study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Healthcare service redesign and improvement has become an important activity that health system leaders and clinicians realise must be nurtured and mastered, if the capacity issues that constrain healthcare delivery are to be solved. However, little is known about the critical success factors that are essential for sustaining and scaling up improvement initiatives. This situation limits the impact of these initiatives and undermines the general standing of redesign and improvement activity within healthcare systems. The conduct of the doctoral research detailed in this study protocol will be nested within a broader parent study that seeks to address this problem by drawing on the theory of 'institutional entrepreneurship'. The doctoral research will apply this idea to understanding the capacities and capabilities required at the organisation level to bring about transformational change in healthcare services.

Methods and analysis

The parent study is predominantly qualitative, is multilevel in nature and has been codesigned with five partner healthcare organisations. The focus is a sector-wide attempt in an Australian state jurisdiction to transfer new redesign and improvement knowledge into the public healthcare system. The doctoral research will focus on the implementation of the sector-wide approach in one healthcare service in the jurisdiction. This research involves interviews with project team members and stakeholders involved in two improvement initiatives undertaken by the health service. It will involve interviews with redesign and improvement leaders and senior managers responsible for the overall health service improvement approach. The methods will also include immersive fieldwork, interviews and focus groups. Appropriate methods for coding and thematic extraction will be applied to the qualitative data.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been granted by the health service and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee. Dissemination will be facilitated via academic publication, industry reports and workshops and dissemination events as part of the broader project.

SUBMITTER: Melder A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6078238 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Examining 'institutional entrepreneurship' in healthcare redesign and improvement through comparative case study research: a study protocol.

Melder Angela A Burns Prue P Mcloughlin Ian I Teede Helena H

BMJ open 20180805 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Healthcare service redesign and improvement has become an important activity that health system leaders and clinicians realise must be nurtured and mastered, if the capacity issues that constrain healthcare delivery are to be solved. However, little is known about the critical success factors that are essential for sustaining and scaling up improvement initiatives. This situation limits the impact of these initiatives and undermines the general standing of redesign and impro ...[more]

PMID: 30082347

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over the past 3 decades, there has been a substantial shift to the marketisation of government-funded health services. For organisations traditionally buffered from the competitive pressures of for-profit enterprises, such as community-based organisations, this means developing the capacity to adapt to competitive tendering processes, shifting client expectations, and increasing demands for greater accountability. Drawing on ideas of institutional entrepreneurship, we believe that attempts to build adaptive capacity require the transformation of existing institutional arrangements. Key in this may be identifying and fostering institutional entrepreneurs--actors who take the lead in being the impetus for, and giving direction to, structural change. This study focuses on the strategies used by institutional entrepreneurs to build adaptive capacity in the community-based healthcare sector.The research will use an adapted rapid realist review. The review will find underlying theories that explain the circumstances surrounding the implementation of capacity-building strategies that shape organisational response and generate outcomes by activating causal mechanisms. An early scoping of the literature, and consultations with key stakeholders, will be undertaken to identify an initial programme theory. We will search for relevant journal articles and grey literature. Data will be extracted based on contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes, and their configurations. The analysis will seek patterns and regularities in these configurations and will focus on confirming, refuting or refining our programme theory.The study does not involve primary research and, therefore, does not require formal ethical approval. However, ethical standards of utility, usefulness, feasibility, propriety, accuracy and accountability will be followed. The results will be written up according to the Realist and Meta-Review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines. Once completed, findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.CRD42015026487.

Project description:ObjectivesWe draw on institutional theory to explore the roles and actions of innovation teams and how this influences their behaviour and capabilities as 'institutional entrepreneurs (IEs)', in particular the extent to which they are both 'willing' and 'able' to facilitate transformational change in healthcare through service redesign.DesignA longitudinal qualitative study that applied a 'researcher in residence' as an ethnographic approach.SettingThe development and implementation of two innovation projects within a single public hospital setting in an Australian state jurisdiction.ParticipantsTwo innovation teams, with members including senior research fellows, PhD scholars and front-line clinicians (19 participants and 47 interviews).ResultsDespite being from the same hospital, the two innovation teams occupied contrasting subject positions with one facilitating transformational improvements in service delivery, while the other sought more conservative improvements. Cast as 'IEs' we show how one team took steps to build legitimacy for their interventions enabling spread and scale in improvements and how, in the other case, failure to build legitimacy resulted in unintended consequences which undermined the sustainability of the improvements achieved.ConclusionsAdopting an institutional approach provided insight into the 'willingness' and 'ability' to facilitate transformational change in healthcare through service redesign. The manner in which innovation teams operate from different subject positions influences the structural and normative legitimacy afforded to their activities. Specifically, we observed that those with the most power (organisational or professional) to bring about transformational change can be the least willing to do so in ways which challenge current practice. Those most willing to challenge the status quo (more peripheral organisation members or professionals) can be least able to deliver transformation. Better understanding of these insights can inform healthcare leaders in supporting innovation team efforts, considering their subject position.

Project description:BackgroundThe NHS is facing substantial pressures to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Optimising workforce modelling is a fundamental component of the recovery plan. The Clinically Lead workforcE and Activity Redesign (CLEAR) programme is a unique methodology that trains clinicians to redesign services, building intrinsic capacity and capability, optimising patient care and minimising the need for costly external consultancy. This paper describes the CLEAR methodology and the evaluation of previous CLEAR projects, including the return on investment.MethodsCLEAR is a work-based learning programme that combines qualitative techniques with data analytics to build innovations and new models of care. It has four unique stages: (1) Clinical engagement- used to gather rich insights from stakeholders and clinicians. (2) Data interrogation- utilising clinical and workforce data for cohort analysis. (3) Innovation- using structured innovation methods to develop new models of care. (4) Recommendations- report writing, impact assessment and presentation of key findings to executive boards. A mixed-methods formative evaluation was carried out on completed projects, which included semi-structured interviews and surveys with CLEAR associates and stakeholders, and a health economic logic model that was developed to link the inputs, processes, outputs and the outcome of CLEAR as well as the potential impacts of the changes identified from the projects.ResultsCLEAR provides a more cost-effective delivery of complex change programmes than the alternatives - resulting in a cost saving of £1.90 for every £1 spent independent of implementation success. Results suggest that CLEAR recommendations are more likely to be implemented compared to other complex healthcare interventions because of the levels of clinical engagement and have a potential return on investment of up to £14 over 5 years for every £1 invested. CLEAR appears to have a positive impact on staff retention and wellbeing, the cost of a CLEAR project is covered if one medical consultant remains in post for a year.ConclusionsThe unique CLEAR methodology is a clinically effective and cost-effective complex healthcare innovation that optimises workforce and activity design, as well as improving staff retention. Embedding CLEAR methodology in the NHS could have substantial impact on patient care, staff well-being and service provision.

Project description:IntroductionAuthors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution.MethodsIn 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals.ResultsThe authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1-22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally.ConclusionKnowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.

Project description:IntroductionResilient healthcare (RHC) is an emerging area of theory and applied research to understand how healthcare organisations cope with the dynamic, variable and demanding environments in which they operate, based on insights from complexity and systems theory. Understanding adaptive capacity has been a focus of RHC studies. Previous studies clearly show why adaptations are necessary and document the successful adaptive actions taken by clinicians. To our knowledge, however, no studies have thus far compared RHC across different teams and countries. There are gaps in the research knowledge related to the multilevel nature of resilience across healthcare systems and the team-based nature of adaptive capacity.This cross-country comparative study therefore aims to add knowledge of how resilience is enabled in diverse healthcare systems by examining adaptive capacity in hospital teams in six countries. The study will identify how team, organisational and national healthcare system factors support or hinder the ability of teams to adapt to variability and change. Findings from this study are anticipated to provide insights to inform the design of RHC systems by considering how macro-level and meso-level structures support adaptive capacity at the micro-level, and to develop guidance for organisations and policymakers.Methods and analysisThe study will employ a multiple comparative case study design of teams nested within hospitals, in turn embedded within six countries: Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The design will be based on the Adaptive Teams Framework placing adaptive teams at the centre of the healthcare system with layers of environmental, organisational and system level factors shaping adaptive capacity. In each of the six countries, a focused mapping of the macro-level features of the healthcare system will be undertaken by using documentary sources and interviews with key informants operating at the macro-level.A sampling framework will be developed to select two hospitals in each country to ensure variability based on size, location and teaching status. Four teams will be selected in each hospital-one each of a structural, hybrid, responsive and coordinating team. A total of eight teams will be studied in each country, creating a total sample of 48 teams. Data collection methods will be observations, interviews and document analysis. Within-case analysis will be conducted according to a standardised template using a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative coding, and cross-case analysis will be conducted drawing on the Qualitative Comparative Analysis framework.Ethics and disseminationThe overall Resilience in Healthcare research programme of which this study is a part has been granted ethical approval by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (Ref. No. 8643334 and Ref. No. 478838). Ethical approval will also be sought in each country involved in the study according to their respective regulatory procedures. Country-specific reports of study outcomes will be produced for dissemination online. A collection of case study summaries will be made freely available, translated into multiple languages. Brief policy communications will be produced to inform policymakers and regulators about the study results and to facilitate translation into practice. Academic dissemination will occur through publication in journals specialising in health services research. Findings will be presented at academic, policy and practitioner conferences, including the annual RHC Network meeting and other healthcare quality and safety conferences. Presentations at practitioner and academic conferences will include workshops to translate the findings into practice and influence quality and safety programmes internationally.

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems that deliver prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) services in low and middle income countries continue to underperform, resulting in thousands of unnecessary HIV infections of newborns each year. We used a combination of approaches to health systems strengthening to reduce transmission of HIV from mother to infant in a multi-facility public health system in South Africa.Methodology/principal findingsAll primary care sites and specialized birthing centers in a resource constrained sub-district of Cape Metro District, South Africa, were enrolled in a quality improvement (QI) programme. All pregnant women receiving antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal infant care in the sub-district between January 2006 and March 2009 were included in the intervention that had a prototype-innovation phase and a rapid spread phase. System changes were introduced to help frontline healthcare workers to identify and improve performance gaps at each step of the PMTCT pathway. Improvement was facilitated and spread through the use of a Breakthrough Series Collaborative that accelerated learning and the spread of successful changes. Protocol changes and additional resources were introduced by provincial and municipal government. The proportion of HIV-exposed infants testing positive declined from 7.6% to 5%. Key intermediate PMTCT processes improved (antenatal AZT increased from 74% to 86%, PMTCT clients on HAART at the time of labour increased from 10% to 25%, intrapartum AZT increased from 43% to 84%, and postnatal HIV testing from 79% to 95%) compared to baseline.Conclusions/significanceSystem improvement methods, protocol changes and addition/reallocation of resources contributed to improved PMTCT processes and outcomes in a resource constrained setting. The intervention requires a clear design, leadership buy-in, building local capacity to use systems improvement methods, and a reliable data system. A systems improvement approach offers a much needed approach to rapidly improve under-performing PMTCT implementation programmes at scale in sub-Saharan Africa.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia is a leading cause of pediatric morbidity. Administrative data are often used to conduct comparative effectiveness research (CER) with sufficient sample sizes to enhance detection of important outcomes. However, such studies are prone to misclassification errors because of the variable accuracy of discharge diagnosis codes.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop an automated, scalable, and accurate method to determine the presence or absence of pneumonia in children using chest imaging reports.MethodsThe multi-institutional PHIS+ clinical repository was developed to support pediatric CER by expanding an administrative database of children's hospitals with detailed clinical data. To develop a scalable approach to find patients with bacterial pneumonia more accurately, we developed a Natural Language Processing (NLP) application to extract relevant information from chest diagnostic imaging reports. Domain experts established a reference standard by manually annotating 282 reports to train and then test the NLP application. Findings of pleural effusion, pulmonary infiltrate, and pneumonia were automatically extracted from the reports and then used to automatically classify whether a report was consistent with bacterial pneumonia.ResultsCompared with the annotated diagnostic imaging reports reference standard, the most accurate implementation of machine learning algorithms in our NLP application allowed extracting relevant findings with a sensitivity of .939 and a positive predictive value of .925. It allowed classifying reports with a sensitivity of .71, a positive predictive value of .86, and a specificity of .962. When compared with each of the domain experts manually annotating these reports, the NLP application allowed for significantly higher sensitivity (.71 vs .527) and similar positive predictive value and specificity .ConclusionsNLP-based pneumonia information extraction of pediatric diagnostic imaging reports performed better than domain experts in this pilot study. NLP is an efficient method to extract information from a large collection of imaging reports to facilitate CER.

Project description:IntroductionOver the past three decades, extensive research has been undertaken to understand the elements of what constitutes high quality in healthcare. Yet, much of this research has been conducted on individual elements and their specific challenges. Hence, goals other than understanding the complex of factors and elements that comprises quality in healthcare have been privileged. This lack of progress has led to the conclusion that existing approaches to research are not able to address the inherent complexity of healthcare systems as characterised by a significant degree of performance variability within and across system levels, and what makes them resilient. A shift is, therefore, necessary in such approaches. Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) adopts an approach comprising a comprehensive research programme that models the capacity of healthcare systems and stakeholders to adapt to changes, variations and/or disruptions: that is, resilience. As such, RiH offers a fresh approach capable of capturing and illuminating the complexity of healthcare and how high-quality care can be understood and advanced.Methods and analysisMethodologically, to illuminate what constitutes quality in healthcare, it is necessary to go beyond single-site, case-based studies. Instead, there is a need to engage in multi-site, cross-national studies and engage in long-term multidisciplinary collaboration between national and international researchers interacting with multiple healthcare stakeholders. By adopting such processes, multiple partners and a multidisciplinary orientation, the 5-year RiH research programme aims to confront these challenges and accelerate current understandings about and approaches to researching healthcare quality.The RiH research programme adopts a longitudinal collaborative interactive design to capture and illuminate resilience as part of healthcare quality in different healthcare settings in Norway and in five other countries. It combines a meta-analysis of detailed empirical research in Norway with cross-country comparison from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK. Through establishing an RiH framework, the programme will identify processes with outcomes that aim to capture how high-quality healthcare provisions are achieved. A collaborative learning framework centred on engagement aims to systematically translate research findings into practice through co-construction processes with partners and stakeholders.Ethics and disseminationThe RiH research programme is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (No. 864334). The empirical projects selected for inclusion in this longitudinal research programme have been approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data or the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. The RiH research programme has an embedded publication and dissemination strategy focusing on the progressive sharing of scientific knowledge, information and results, and on engaging with the public, including relevant patient and stakeholder representatives. The findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, PhD dissertations, presentations at national and international conferences, and through social media, newsletters and the popular media.

Dataset Information

Examining 'institutional entrepreneurship' in healthcare redesign and improvement through comparative case study research: a study protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Examining 'institutional entrepreneurship' in healthcare redesign and improvement through comparative case study research: a study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets