Search results

This chapter examines why managed clinical networks are an appropriate approach to sustainable healthcare, and discusses the conditions for the effectiveness of these multi-stakeholder, clinician-led modes of organizing. It describes the development of a national clinical network to achieve system-wide improvement in the provision of publicly funded cardiac surgery services in New Zealand, and the subsequent evolution of a broader network encompassing the whole cardiac care patient pathway.

The case study of the two cardiac clinical networks focuses on the emergence and evolution of the networks over a four-year period from 2009. Data were collected from interviews with key stakeholders of both networks and from internal and published documentary evidence. Analysis of the case study is informed by network theory and prior studies of managed clinical networks.

Progress made towards the achievement of the goals of the initial cardiac surgery network encouraged a broadening of focus to the entire cardiac care pathway and the establishment of the national cardiac network. An important benefit has been the learning and increase in understanding among the different stakeholders involved. Both clinical networks have demonstrated the value of clinician engagement and leadership in improving the delivery of health services, and serve as a best practice model for the development of further clinical networks for health services that require a national population base.

The case study analysis of the two cardiac clinical networks identifies five mutually reinforcing themes that underpin network effectiveness: network structure, management and governance, and internal and external legitimation. These themes encompass a number of factors suggestive of successful managed clinical networks, and offer insights into the use of such networks in organizing for sustainable healthcare.

Australian states have embraced clinical networking as a mechanism for managing, organising and improving the quality of care. Using these individualised state approaches to clinical networks, in this paper the authors aim to examine this Australasian “experimentation” and present lessons for other health systems.

The paper draws on current knowledge from the literature on clinical networks. The 2010 Inaugural Australasian Clinical Networks Conference also serves as a primary resource, as well as the authors' extensive discussions with policy‐makers, managers and clinicians in Australasian systems.

Key themes from the literature include: network type (mandated or natural, and hybrids); network purpose; the importance of network objectives; drivers of network success and barriers; the need for consumer engagement; and the difficulty of evaluating network effectiveness. Policy challenges include the establishment of networks for some specialty areas and not others; how to develop common standards across networks; and the need for performance metrics to assess network impact on patient outcomes. Australian networks report difficulties with achieving greater involvement of rural clinicians and indigenous populations, and with private sector clinical engagement. There are challenges too with implementation, at service level, of models of care and recommendations.

Clinical networks are becoming a fundamental vehicle for clinical improvement and change across complex organisational and professional boundaries. How to nurture and sustain effective clinical networks is of import to every health system and the authors invite stakeholders in health systems to network and share their empirical research on clinical networks to assist with distinguishing the evidence from the rhetoric.

To further our insight into the role of networks in health system reform, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how one agency, the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI), and the multiple networks and enabling resources that it encompasses, govern, manage and extend the potential of networks for healthcare practice improvement.

This is a case study investigation which took place over ten months through the first author’s participation in network activities and discussions with the agency’s staff about their main objectives, challenges and achievements, and with selected services around the state of New South Wales to understand the agency’s implementation and large system transformation activities.

The paper demonstrates that ACI accommodates multiple networks whose oversight structures, self-organisation and systems change approaches combined in dynamic ways, effectively yield a diversity of network governances. Further, ACI bears out a paradox of “centralised decentralisation”, co-locating agents of innovation with networks of implementation and evaluation expertise. This arrangement strengthens and legitimates the role of the strategic hybrid – the healthcare professional in pursuit of change and improvement, and enhances their influence and impact on the wider system.

While focussing the case study on one agency only, this study is unique as it highlights inter-network connections. Contributing to the literature on network governance, this paper identifies ACI as a “network of networks” through which resources, expectations and stakeholder dynamics are dynamically and flexibly mediated and enhanced.

The co-location of and dynamic interaction among clinical networks may create synergies among networks, nurture “strategic hybrids”, and enhance the impact of network activities on health system reform.

Network governance requires more from network members than participation in a single network, as it involves health service professionals and consumers in a multi-network dynamic. This dynamic requires deliberations and collaborations to be flexible, and it increasingly positions members as “strategic hybrids” – people who have moved on from singular taken-as-given stances and identities, towards hybrid positionings and flexible perspectives.

This paper is novel in that it identifies a critical feature of health service reform and large system transformation: network governance is empowered through the dynamic co-location of and collaboration among healthcare networks, particularly when complemented with “enabler” teams of people specialising in programme implementation and evaluation.

Value-based healthcare suggested using patient-reported information to complement the information available in the medical records and administrative healthcare data to provide insights into patients' perceptions of satisfaction, experience and self-reported outcomes. However, little attention has been devoted to questions about factors fostering the use of patient-reported information to create value at the system level.

Action research design is carried out to elicit possible triggers using the case of patient-reported experience and outcome data for breast cancer women along their clinical pathway in the clinical breast network of Tuscany (Italy).

The case shows that communication and engagement of multi-stakeholder representation are needed for making information actionable in a multi-level, multispecialty care pathway organized in a clinical network; moreover, political and managerial support from higher level governance is a stimulus for legitimizing the use for quality improvement. At the organizational level, an external facilitator disclosing and discussing real-world uses of collected data is a trigger to link measures to action. Also, clinical champion(s) and clear goals are key success factors. Nonetheless, resource munificent and dedicated information support tools together with education and learning routines are enabling factors.

Current literature focuses on key factors that impact performance information use often considering unidimensional performance and internal sources of information. The use of patient/user-reported information is not yet well-studied especially in supporting quality improvement in multi-stakeholder governance. The work appears relevant for the implications it carries, especially for policymakers and public sector managers when confronting the gap in patient-reported measures for quality improvement.

Abstract This article looks at the benefits of and obstacles to using a whole systems approach to plan and deliver personality disorder services. It does so using the example of the Leeds Managed Clinical Network, a community pilot service that employs whole system working to support people with personality disorder.

This paper examines the relationship between key actors in an organisation and informal professional networks. It uses pragmatic constructivism (PC) as a research paradigm together with concepts borrowed from the theory of social networks to investigate how these actors responded to a particular set of non-financial performance targets.

The implementation process of waiting time targets in the Accident and Emergency Department was observed as part of an in-depth study at a large English National Health Service hospital. The main sources of data were face-to-face interviews with key actors, documentary archival evidence and observation diaries.

The results indicated that with the effect of information sharing through these networks, implementation methodology switched from systems approach to actors approach. Professional connections between key actors had allowed them to generate their own understanding in responding to new performance measures. As a consequence, the perceptions of other actors in relevant networks, as well as the implementation practices were influenced.

This is a single-site, in-depth case study; hence, the findings are not generalizable.

This study demonstrated just how influential some key actors can be in shaping the implementation of performance measures.

The paper contributes to PC by providing evidence on the influence of informal professional networks and structural holes in shaping organisational topos.

The purpose of this paper is to explore leadership in the context of the hub and spoke network in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) in the English National Health Service (NHS).

This paper is a conceptual paper using literature relating to the antecedents of shared leadership and relevant policy documents pertaining to both NHS policy and the development of OMFS. The paper is informed, theoretically by the conceptual lens of shared leadership.

The paper identifies the challenges that may be faced by policymakers and those involved in the hub and spoke network in developing shared leadership. It also reveals the implications for policymakers in developing shared leadership.

The paper is conceptual. It is acknowledged that this is a preliminary study and further work will be required to test the conceptual framework empirically. The paper discusses the policy implications of developing leadership in the hub and spoke network. As networks are of interest internationally this has wider relevance to other countries.

There is limited research on the antecedents of shared leadership. In addition, the conceptual framework is applied to a new policy context.

The purpose of this article is to explore the knowledge capture process at the clinical level. It aims to identify factors that enable or constrain learning. The study applies complex adaptive system thinking principles to reconcile learning within the NHS.

The paper uses a qualitative exploratory study with an interpretative methodological stance set in a secondary care NHS Trust. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with healthcare practitioners and managers involved at both strategic and operational risk management processes.

A network structure is revealed that exhibits the communication and interdependent working practices to support knowledge capture and adaptive learning. Collaborative multidisciplinary communities, whose values reflect local priorities and promote open dialogue and reflection, are featured. The main concern is that the characteristics of bureaucracy; rational‐legal authority, a rule‐based culture, hierarchical lines of communication and a centralised governance focus, are hindering clinical learning by generating barriers.

Locally emergent collaborative processes are a key strategic resource to capture knowledge, potentially fostering an environment that could learn from failure and translate lessons between contexts. What must be addressed is that reporting mechanisms serve not only the governance objectives, but also supplement learning by highlighting the potential lessons in context. Managers must nurture a collaborative infrastructure using networks in a co‐evolutionary manner. Their role is not to direct and design processes but to influence, support and create effective knowledge capture.

Although the study only investigated one site the findings and conclusions may well translate to other trusts – such as the risk of not enabling a learning environment at clinical levels.

This chapter provides a reflective synopsis of six cases focused on making healthcare sustainable. The nature and value of an ecosystem perspective is explored. The intent is to apply and generate organizational knowledge to understand and guide purposeful design and learning.

From five countries where healthcare is organized differently, these cases illuminate particular approaches to develop the capabilities for healthcare to deliver greater value to society. Each case is examined through the lens of an appropriate theoretical perspective. This chapter reports the themes that were common in the six case studies.

New approaches are changing the connections in the healthcare ecosystem, including the flows of: medical knowledge, clinical information, and resources. Common themes include: the importance of networks in the emerging healthcare ecosystem; the role of governance mechanisms and leadership to align the diverse ecosystem components; the engagement of dominant ecosystem actors; the need for adaptive change capabilities, and for multi-stakeholder research collaborations to generate actionable knowledge.

Taking an ecosystem perspective enables healthcare leaders to broaden their conceptualization of the changes that will be required to be sustainable in a changing society.

Almost every man, woman and child is affected by the healthcare system. Increasing the sustainability of healthcare is integral to increasing societal sustainability overall.

Viewing the ecosystem as the appropriate focus of purposeful change departs from a traditional approach that focuses on the effectiveness of each element.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of a structured clinical leadership programme on healthcare professionals working within the British National Health Service (NHS). Clinical leadership is now regarded as essential in addressing the complex challenges in the NHS, yet few trainees of any healthcare discipline receive formal training. The study describes a peer-led evaluation of a year-long, multidisciplinary, experiential programme, the “Darzi Fellowship”, based in London.

An anonymous survey was analysed using a mixed-methods approach. Individual and collective experiences of fellows were evaluated, in particular the perceived impact the fellowship had on: the fellows themselves, their “host” organisation and the NHS as a whole.

A 90 per cent return rate was achieved. In all, 94 per cent reported that the experience had been valuable to them, 85 per cent feeling more empowered to effect change in healthcare systems. Crucial mechanisms to achieve this included increased self-awareness, personal reflection and the freedom to gain a greater understanding of organisations. Particular emphasis was placed on the value of developing clinical networks which promote collaboration across boundaries. Fellows emerged as more reflexive, critical and strategic thinkers.

This paper demonstrates the positive impact that clinical leadership training can have on participants, and the mechanisms by which future leaders can be created.

The novel, non-commissioned, peer-initiated and peer-led evaluation describes the personal experiences of fellows in a unique, multidisciplinary clinical leadership programme. The authors hope this will inform the development of future schemes in the NHS and provide learning for an international healthcare audience.