Dataset Information

The micropolitics of implementation; a qualitative study exploring the impact of power, authority, and influence when implementing change in healthcare teams.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Healthcare organisations are complex social entities, comprising of multiple stakeholders with differing priorities, roles, and expectations about how care should be delivered. To reach agreement among these diverse interest groups and achieve safe, cost-effective patient care, healthcare staff must navigate the micropolitical context of the health service. Micropolitics in this study refers to the use of power, authority, and influence to affect team goals, vision, and decision-making processes. Although these concepts are influential when cultivating change, there is a dearth of literature examining the mechanisms through which micropolitics influences implementation processes among teams. This paper addresses this gap by exploring the role of power, authority, and influence when implementing a collective leadership intervention in two multidisciplinary healthcare teams. METHODS:The multiple case study design adopted employed a triangulation of qualitative research methods. Over thirty hours of observations (Case A?=?16, Case B?=?15) and twenty-five interviews (Case A?=?13, Case B?=?12) were completed. An in-depth thematic analysis of the data using an inductive coding approach was completed to understand the mechanisms through which contextual factors influenced implementation success. A context coding framework was also employed throughout implementation to succinctly collate the data into a visual display and to provide a high-level overview of implementation effect (i.e. the positive, neutral, or negative impact of contextual determinants on implementation). RESULTS:The findings emphasised that implementing change in healthcare teams is an inherently political process influenced by prevailing power structures. Two key themes were generated which revealed the dynamic role of these concepts throughout implementation: 1) Exerting hierarchical influence for implementation; and 2) Traditional power structures constraining implementation. Gaining support across multiple levels of leadership was influential to implementation success as the influence exercised by these individuals persuaded follower engagement. However, the historical dynamics of each team determined how this influence was exerted and perceived, which negatively impacted some participants' experiences of the implementation process. CONCLUSION:To date, micropolitics has received scant attention in implementation science literature. This study introduces the micropolitical concepts of power, authority and influence as essential contextual determinants and outlines the mechanisms through which these concepts influence implementation processes.

SUBMITTER: Rogers L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7684932 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The micropolitics of implementation; a qualitative study exploring the impact of power, authority, and influence when implementing change in healthcare teams.

Rogers Lisa L De Brún Aoife A Birken Sarah A SA Davies Carmel C McAuliffe Eilish E

BMC health services research 20201123 1

<h4>Background</h4>Healthcare organisations are complex social entities, comprising of multiple stakeholders with differing priorities, roles, and expectations about how care should be delivered. To reach agreement among these diverse interest groups and achieve safe, cost-effective patient care, healthcare staff must navigate the micropolitical context of the health service. Micropolitics in this study refers to the use of power, authority, and influence to affect team goals, vision, and decisi ...[more]

PMID: 33228702

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecision Boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of health interventions provided to clinicians before they meet the patient, to prepare them to help patients make informed and value-based decisions. Our objective is to explore the barriers and facilitators to using Decision Boxes in clinical practice, more precisely factors stemming from (1) the Decision Boxes themselves, (2) the primary healthcare team (PHT), and (3) the primary care practice environment.Methods/designA two-phase mixed methods study will be conducted. Eight Decision Boxes relevant to primary care, and written in both English and in French, will be hosted on a website together with a tutorial to introduce the Decision Box. The Decision Boxes will be delivered as weekly emails over a span of eight weeks to clinicians of PHTs (family physicians, residents and nurses) in five primary care clinics located across two Canadian provinces. Using a web-questionnaire, clinicians will rate each Decision Box with the Information Assessment Method (cognitive impacts, relevance, usefulness, expected benefits) and with a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to study the determinants of clinicians' intention to use what they learned from that Decision Box in their patient encounter (attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). Web-log data will be used to monitor clinicians' access to the website. Following the 8-week intervention, we will conduct semi-structured group interviews with clinicians and individual interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Decision Boxes. Data collected from questionnaires, focus groups and individual interviews will be combined to identify factors potentially influencing implementation of Decision Boxes in clinical practice by clinicians of PHTs.ConclusionsThis project will allow tailoring of Decision Boxes and their delivery to overcome the specific barriers identified by clinicians of PHTs to improve the implementation of shared decision making in this setting.

Project description:BackgroundThe Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a multidimensional framework designed to improve care for patients with chronic health conditions. The model strives for productive interactions between informed, activated patients and proactive practice teams, resulting in better clinical outcomes and greater satisfaction. While measures for improving care may be clear, measures of residents' competency to provide chronic care do not exist. This report describes the process used to develop educational measures and results from CCM settings that used them to monitor curricular innovations.SubjectsTwenty-six academic health care teams participating in the national and California Academic Chronic Care Collaboratives.MethodUsing successive discussion groups and surveys, participants engaged in an iterative process to identify desirable and feasible educational measures for curricula that addressed educational objectives linked to the CCM. The measures were designed to facilitate residency programs' abilities to address new accreditation requirements and tested with teams actively engaged in redesigning educational programs.AnalysisField notes from each discussion and lists from work groups were synthesized using the CCM framework. Descriptive statistics were used to report survey results and measurement performance.ResultsWork groups generated educational objectives and 17 associated measurements. Seventeen (65%) teams provided feasibility and desirability ratings for the 17 measures. Two process measures were selected for use by all teams. Teams reported variable success using the measures. Several teams reported use of additional measures, suggesting more extensive curricular change.ConclusionUsing an iterative process in collaboration with program participants, we successfully defined a set of feasible and desirable education measures for academic health care teams using the CCM. These were used variably to measure the results of curricular changes, while simultaneously addressing requirements for residency accreditation.

Project description:BackgroundThis paper reports on a qualitative evaluation of a hybrid type II stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial using implementation facilitation to implement team-based care in the form of the collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in interdisciplinary outpatient mental health teams. The objective of this analysis is to compare the alignment of sites' clinical processes with the CCM elements at baseline (time 1) and after 12 months of implementation facilitation (time 2) from the perspective of providers.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews to assess the extent to which six CCM elements were in place: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. Interviews were transcribed and a priori CCM elements were coded using a directed content analysis approach at times 1 and 2. We sought consensus on, and compared, the extent to which each CCM element was in place at times 1 and 2.ResultsWe conducted 27 and 31 telephone interviews at times 1 and 2, respectively, with outpatient mental health providers at nine participating sites. At time 1 and time 2, three CCM elements were most frequently present across the sites: work role redesign, patient self-management support, and provider decision support. The CCM elements with increased implementation from time 1 to time 2 were work role redesign, patient self-management support, and clinical information systems. For two CCM elements, linkages to community resources and organizational/leadership support, some sites had increased implementation at time 2 compared to time 1, while others had reductions. For the provider decision support element, we saw little change in the extent of its implementation.ConclusionsSites increased the extent of implementation on several CCM elements. The most progress was made in the CCM elements where sites had CCM-aligned processes in place at time 1. Teams made progress on elements they could more easily control, such as work role redesign. Our results suggest that maximizing the benefits of CCM-based outpatient mental health care may require targeting resources and training toward specific CCM elements-especially in the use of clinical information systems and linking with community resources.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT02543840 .

Project description:Antibiotic resistance is a global health concern. Although numerous strategies have tried to reduce inadequate antibiotic prescribing, antibiotics are still prescribed in 60% of acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) cases in Catalonia (Spain). This study aims to explore service users' experiences of ALRTIs, the quality and access to healthcare services, and health education. Selective purposive sampling was carried out, based on a prior definition of participant characteristics. These were sex, age, ethnicity, date of the last ALRTI, number of ALRTIs in the last year, and treatments received. Participants with a previous diagnosis of ALRTIs were recruited from three primary health care centres in Barcelona and one in Tarragona. Twenty-nine interviews were conducted between April and June 2019. A content thematic analysis was performed. Three themes were identified: 1) risk perceptions and help-seeking; 2) treatment preferences and antibiotic use; and 3) relationship dynamics and communication with healthcare professionals. Accounts of service users' sense of autonomy towards their health and power dynamics within the healthcare system were apparent. Supporting service users to become reliable, subjective and agentic experts of their health and bodies could help them to voice their healthcare agendas. Power structures embedded within healthcare, political and economic institutions should be challenged so that healthcare services can be co-developed (with service users) and based on service users' autonomy and horizontal relationships. Special consideration should be paid to the intersection of social vulnerabilities. A concordance approach to prescribing could be key to improve the responsible use of antibiotics and to contribute to the prevention of AMR in primary healthcare. The marketisation of health, and the increased demands of private healthcare in Spain due to the financial pressures on public healthcare as a consequence of the financial crisis of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic, are a risk for promoting adequate antibiotic prescribing and use. Trial registration The ISAAC-CAT study has been registered in the NCT registry, ID: NCT03931577.

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.

Dataset Information

The micropolitics of implementation; a qualitative study exploring the impact of power, authority, and influence when implementing change in healthcare teams.

Publications

The micropolitics of implementation; a qualitative study exploring the impact of power, authority, and influence when implementing change in healthcare teams.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets