Search results

Diffusion of innovations, defined as the adoption and implementation of new ideas, processes, products, or services in health care, is both particularly important and especially challenging. One known problem with adoption and implementation of new technologies is that, while organizations often make innovations immediately available, organizational actors are more wary about adopting new technologies because these may impact not only patients and practices but also reimbursement. As a result, innovations may remain underutilized, and organizations may miss opportunities to improve and advance. As innovation adoption is vital to achieving success and remaining competitive, it is important to measure and understand factors that impact innovation diffusion. Building on a survey of a national sample of 654 clinicians, our study measures the extent of diffusion of value-enhancing care delivery innovations (i.e., technologies that not only improve quality of care but has potential to reduce care cost by diminishing waste, Faems et al., 2010) for 13 clinical specialties and identifies healthcare-specific individual characteristics such as: professional purview, supervisory responsibility, financial incentive, and clinical tenure associated with innovation diffusion. We also examine the association of innovation diffusion with perceived value of one type of care delivery innovation – artificial intelligence (AI) – for assisting clinicians in their clinical work. Responses indicate that less than two-thirds of clinicians were knowledgeable about and aware of relevant value-enhancing care delivery innovations. Clinicians with broader professional purview, more supervisory responsibility, and stronger financial incentives had higher innovation diffusion scores, indicating greater knowledge and awareness of value-enhancing, care delivery innovations. Higher levels of knowledge of the innovations and awareness of their implementation were associated with higher perceptions of the value of AI-based technology. Our study contributes to our knowledge of diffusion of innovation in healthcare delivery and highlights potential mechanisms for speeding innovation diffusion.

The primary objective of this paper is to show a systematic and methodological approach for the digitalization of critical clinical pathways (CPs) within the healthcare domain.

The methodology entails the integration of service design (SD) and action research (AR) methodologies, characterized by iterative phases that systematically alternate between action and reflective processes, fostering cycles of change and learning. Within this framework, stakeholders are engaged through semi-structured interviews, while the existing and envisioned processes are delineated and represented using BPMN 2.0. These methodological steps emphasize the development of an autonomous, patient-centric web application alongside the implementation of an adaptable and patient-oriented scheduling system. Also, business processes simulation is employed to measure key performance indicators of processes and test for potential improvements. This method is implemented in the context of the CP addressing transient loss of consciousness (TLOC), within a publicly funded hospital setting.

The methodology integrating SD and AR enables the detection of pivotal bottlenecks within diagnostic CPs and proposes optimal corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted patient care, all the while advancing the digitalization of diagnostic CP management. This study contributes to theoretical discussions by emphasizing the criticality of process optimization, the transformative potential of digitalization in healthcare and the paramount importance of user-centric design principles, and offers valuable insights into healthcare management implications.

The study’s relevance lies in its ability to enhance healthcare practices without necessitating disruptive and resource-intensive process overhauls. This pragmatic approach aligns with the imperative for healthcare organizations to improve their operations efficiently and cost-effectively, making the study’s findings relevant.

Healthcare tribalism refers to the phenomenon through which different groups in a healthcare setting strictly adhere to their profession-based silo, within which they exhibit stereotypical behaviours. In turn, this can lead to deleterious downstream effects upon productivity and care delivered to patients. This study highlights a clinician-led governance model, implemented at a National Health Service (NHS) trust, to investigate whether it successfully overcame tribalism and helped drive innovation.

This was a convergent mixed-methods study including qualitative and quantitative data collected in parallel. Qualitative data included 27 semi-structured interviews with representatives from four professional groups. Quantitative data were collected through a verbally administered survey and scored on a 10-point scale.

The trust arranged its services under five autonomous business units, with a clinician and a manager sharing the leadership role at each unit. According to interviewees replies, this equivalent authority was cascaded down and enabled breaking down professional siloes, which in turn aided in the adoption of an innovative clinical model restructure.

This study contributes to the literature by characterizing a real-world example in which healthcare tribalism was mitigated while reflecting on the advantages yielded as a result.

Previous studies from all over the world identified major differences in the perspectives of different healthcare professional groups. In the United Kingdom, clinicians largely felt cut off from decision-making and dissatisfied with their managerial role. The study findings explain a governance model that allowed harmony and inclusion of different professions. Given the long-standing strains on healthcare systems worldwide, stakeholders can leverage the study findings for guidance in developing and implementing innovative managerial approaches.

Value-based health care (VBHC) argues that health-care needs to re-focus to maximise value creation, defining value as the quota when dividing the outcomes important for the patient, by the cost for health care to deliver such outcomes. This study aims to explore the perception of value among different stakeholders involved in the process of implementing VBHC at a Swedish hospital to support leaders to be more efficient and effective when developing health care.

Participants comprised 19 clinicians and non-clinicians involved in the implementation of VBHC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and content analysis was performed.

The clinicians described value as a dynamic concept, dependent on the patient and the clinical setting, stating that improving outcomes was more important than containing costs. The value for non-clinicians appeared more driven by the interplay between the outcome and the cost. Non-clinicians related VBHC to a strategic framework for governance or for monitoring different continuous improvement processes, while clinicians appreciated VBHC, as they perceived its introduction as an opportunity to focus more on outcomes for patients and less on cost containment.

There is variation in how clinicians and non-clinicians perceive the key concept of value when implementing VBHC. Clinicians focus on increasing treatment efficacy and improving medical outcomes but have a limited focus on cost and what patients consider most valuable. If the concept of value is defined primarily by clinicians’ own assumptions, there is a clear risk that the foundational premise of VBHC, to understand what outcomes patients value in their specific situation in relation to the cost to produce such outcome, will fail. Health-care leaders need to ensure that patients and the non-clinicians’ perception of value, is integrated with the clinical perception, if VBHC is to deliver on its promise.

The Voice of the Clinician project commenced during an era when practitioner burnout, dissatisfaction, and turnover became an increasingly global health workforce concern. One key problem is clinical staff not being empowered to voice their concerns to decision-makers, as was found in this case study of an Australian public health organization. The following research question informed the present study: What is a better committee system for clinician engagement in decision-making processes? The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The Mid North Coast Local Health District in New South Wales aspired to improve engagement between frontline clinicians and decision-makers. Social network analysis methods and mathematical modeling were used in the discovery of how committees are connected to each other and subsequently to other committee members.

This effort uncovered a hidden organizational architecture of 323 committees of 926 members which overall cost 84,729 person hours and AUD$2.923 million per annum. Furthermore, frontline clinicians were located far from centers of influence, just 37 percent of committees had terms of reference, and clinicians reported that meeting agendas were not being met.

In response to the findings, a technological platform was created so that the board of directors could visually see all the committees and the connections between them, thus creating ways to further improve communication, transparency of process, and – ultimately – clinician engagement.

The breakthrough idea is that all organizational meetings can be seen as a system of engagement and should be analyzed to determine and describe the points and pathways where clinician voice is blocked.

The paper examines interviewee insights into accountability for clinical governance in high-consequence, life-and-death hospital settings. The analysis draws on the distinction between formal “imposed accountability” and front-line “felt accountability”. From these insights, the paper introduces an emergent concept, “grounded accountability”.

Interviews are conducted with 41 clinicians, managers and governors in two large academic hospitals. The authors ask interviewees to recall a critical clinical incident as a focus for elucidating their experiences of and observation on the practice of accountability.

Accountability emerges from the front-line, on-the-ground. Together, clinicians, managers and governors co-construct accountability. Less attention is paid to cost, blame, legal processes or personal reputation. Money and other accountability assumptions in business do not always apply in a hospital setting.

The authors propose the concept of co-constructed “grounded accountability” comprising interrelationships between the concept’s three constituent themes of front-line staff’s felt accountability, along with grounded engagement by managers/governors, supported by a culture of openness.

The purpose of this paper is to review the establishment of Primary Health Network (PHN) in Australia and its utility in commissioning Primary Health Care (PHC) services.

This study is an analysis of management practice about the establishment and development of a PHN as a case study over the three-year period. The PHN is the Hunter New England and Central Coast PHN (HNECCPHN). The study is based on “insiders perspectives” drawing from documentation, reports and evaluations undertaken.

HNECCPHN demonstrates a unique inclusive organisation across a substantial diverse geographic area. It has taken an innovative and evidence-based approach to its creation, governance and operation. HNECCPHN addresses the health challenges of a substantial Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander population. It contains significant and diverse urban, coastal and distinct rural, regional and remote populations. It can be described as a “virtual” organisation, using a distributed network of practice approach to engage clinicians, communities and providers. The authors describe progress and learning in the context of theories of complex organisations, innovation, networks of practice, knowledge translation and social innovation.

The study provides initial publication into the establishment phase of a PHN in Australia.

The study describes the implementation and progress in terms of relevant international practice and theoretical concepts. This paper demonstrates significant innovative practice in the short term.

The study describes significant engagement and the importance of that with and between communities, service providers and health professionals.

This is the first study of the results of the implementation of an important change in the funding and delivery of PHC in Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges that are experienced by staff responsible for commissioning liaison psychiatry services and to establish if these are shared by other health professionals.

Using a mixed-methods design, the findings from a mental health commissioner workshop (n = 12) were used to construct a survey that was distributed to health care professionals using an opportunistic framework (n = 98).

Four key themes emerged from the workshop, which was tested using the survey. The importance of secure funding; a better understanding of health care systems and pathways; partnership working and co-production and; access to mental health clinical information in general hospitals. There was broad convergence between commissioners, mental health clinicians and managers, except in relation to gathering and sharing of data. This suggests that poor communication between professionals is of concern.

There were a small number of survey respondents (n = 98). The sampling used an opportunistic framework that targeted commissioner and clinician forums. Using an opportunistic framework, the sample may not be representative. Additionally, multiple pairwise comparisons were conducted during the analysis of the survey responses, increasing the risk that significant results were found by chance.

A number of steps were identified that could be applied in practice. These mainly related to the importance of collecting and communicating data and co-production with commissioners in the design, development and monitoring of liaison psychiatry services.

This is the first study that has specifically considered the challenges associated with the commissioning of liaison psychiatry services.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of negotiation training delivered to senior clinicians, managers and executives, by exploring whether staff members implemented negotiation skills in their workplace following the training, and if so, how and when.

This is a qualitative study involving face-to-face interviews with 18 senior clinicians, managers and executives who completed a two-day intensive negotiation skills training course. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and inductive interpretive analysis techniques were used to identify common themes. Research setting was a large tertiary care hospital and health service in regional Australia.

Participants generally reported positive affective and utility reactions to the training, and attempted to implement at least some of the skills in the workplace. The main enabler was provision of a Negotiation Toolkit to assist in preparing and conducting negotiations. The main barrier was lack of time to reflect on the principles and prepare for upcoming negotiations. Participants reported that ongoing skill development and retention were not adequately addressed; suggestions for improving sustainability included provision of refresher training and mentoring.

Limitations include self-reported data, and interview questions positively elicited examples of training translation.

The training was well matched to participant needs, with negotiation a common and daily activity for most healthcare professionals. Implementation of the skills showed potential for improving collaboration and problem solving in the workplace. Practical examples of how the skills were used in the workplace are provided.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first international study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of an integrative bargaining negotiation training program targeting executives, senior clinicians and management staff in a large healthcare organization.

This is the first study to evaluate ADHD-hyperactive/impulsive subtype in a large clinical sample of adults with ADHD. The Quality of Life, Effectiveness, Safety and Tolerability (QuEST) study included 725 adults who received clinician diagnoses of any ADHD sub-type. Cross-sectional baseline data from 691 patients diagnosed with the hyperactive/impulsive (HI), inattentive (IA) and combined sub-types were used to compare the groups on the clinician administered ADHD-RS, clinical features and health-related quality of life. A consistent pattern of differences was found between the ADHD-I and combined subtypes, with the combined subtype being more likely to be diagnosed in childhood, more severe symptom severity and lower HRQL. Twenty-three patients out of the total sample of 691 patients (3%) received a clinician diagnosis of ADHD -hyperactive/impulsive subtype. Review of the ratings on the ADHD-RS-IV demonstrated, however, that this group had ratings of inattention comparable to the inattentive group. There were no significant differences found between the ADHD-HI and the other subtypes in symptom severity, functioning or quality of life. The hyperactive/impulsive subtype group identified by clinicians in this study was not significantly different from the rest of the sample. By contrast, significant differences were found between the inattentive and combined types. This suggests that in adults, hyperactivity declines and inattention remains significant, making the hyperactive/impulsive sub-type as defined by childhood criteria a very rare condition and raising questions as to the validity of the HI subtype in adults.