Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present the learnings of a broker organization that started a new Population Health Management initiative in two regions in the Netherlands. The research focusses on the role of the broker organization itself in supporting stakeholders in the region to adopt a new implementation strategy designed by the broker organisation itself. The basis of this model was to organize, finance and monitor differently to improve the overall health of the population.

An action research approach was chosen to support the endeavours of the broker organization and to acquire practical knowledge on the role of a third-party in PHM implementation. Qualitative data were collected from documentary analysis, focus groups, logbooks and observational data from team meetings.

The main result is that the role of the broker organization to implement PHM was subject to change during the more than two years of the research. Several themes emerged that influenced these role changes, both internal and external, showing the complexity of providing PHM implementation support as a third-party to regional stakeholders.

We hypothesize that the role of a third-party changes depending on the maturity of the regional collaboration. The complexity of the transition in healthcare calls for constant adaptations, and thus learning and reflection, from all involved. Action research is a strong tool for this.

This paper is one of the first to report on the role of a third-party in PHM implementation. The action research methodology offered the right amount of flexibility to adhere to the complexity of the context and provided rich insights.

Status distinctions matter among heterogeneous organizations within a socio-environmental field. This is exemplified in the food waste field, where six types of organizations employ different excess strategies to address the issue. Theoretically, we propose that status is constructed internally through advice relationships and externally through evaluations. We posit that organizations conducting evaluations and advocating legitimate principles based on expertise (i.e., Others) are status winners. Our mixed-method study confirms that Others hold privileged positions and identifies status inconsistencies. By critically illuminating these status dynamics, we contribute to a better understanding of the roles of organizations and status in tackling socio-environmental issues.

Organizational sociology and organization studies have a long history together, while also sharing a proclivity to self-diagnose crises. Instead of taking these assessments at face value, this paper treats them as an object of study, asking what conditions have fueled them. In the case of organizational sociology, there are indications of a connection between rising levels of discontent and community building: self-identified organizational sociologists have progressively withdrawn from general debates in the discipline and turned their attention to organization studies, which, they suspect, has seen dramatic levels of growth at their expense. Organization studies, on the other hand, are still haunted by “a Faustian bargain”: leaning heavily on the authority of the social sciences, business school faculty were able to facilitate the emergence of a scholarly field of practice dedicated to the study of organizations, which they control. However, in doing so, they also set organization studies on a path of continued dependence on knowledge produced elsewhere: notably, by university disciplines such as sociology.

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.

Sociologists have long thought of the integration of people in communities – social integration – and hierarchical social systems – systemic integration – as contradictory goals. What strategies allow organizations to reconcile social and systemic integration? We examine this question through 40 in-depth, longitudinal interviews with leaders of nonprofit organizations that engage in the dual pursuit of social and systemic integration. Two processes reveal how the internal structure of organizations often mirrors the ways in which organizations are embedded in their local environments. When organizations engage in loose demographic coupling, relegating those who “match” the community to the work of social integration, they produce internal inequalities and justify them by claiming community building as sacred work. When engaging in community anchoring, organizations challenge internal and external inequalities simultaneously, but this process comes with costs. Our findings contribute to a constructivist understanding of community, the mechanisms by which organizations produce inequalities, and a place-based conception of organizations as embedded in community.

The purpose of this study is to identify important strategies and practices supporting inter-organizational learning (IOL) in integrated care. The two research questions ask how organizational network architectures can help involved organizations overcome the barriers of IOL in integrated care (RQ1) and what design recommendations can strengthen the processes of IOL in integrated care (RQ2).

This study applies a qualitative design to analyze an improvement initiative in a regional, integrated care service for elderly patients with multiple illnesses in Norway. An inductive thematic analysis for the triangulating of qualitative data from different sources was applied. Patterns within the data were organized into themes, categories and subcategories. No software was applied.

The identified characteristics of the organizational network architectures supporting IOL in integrated care in the case under study were: equality of the involved parties, shared goals, recognition of expertise and the abilities to coordinate, design IOL processes and make joint decisions (RQ1). The categories of practices supporting the process of IOL were: insight into complex realities, contradictions, iteration, motivation and prototypes (RQ2).

This study offers much-needed insight into a successful approach for IOL in integrated care. The results offer strategies to be considered when building organizational networks for the improvement of integrated care and relevant practices useful when designing IOL processes in such care services. We believe such knowledge has important implications for policymakers, frontline personnel, education, research and leaders.

Common challenges for healthcare systems worldwide are population ageing, rising therapy spending and reduced economic resources. In response, AI can play a crucial role in facilitating managerial and economic objectives within a holistic vision of care and improve the experience of patients and professionals. AI may change the delivery of services and the demand for them as well. This raises questions of how to balance the supply and demand sides of healthcare services, how to leverage competitive positioning and how to differentiate strategies specific to the public and to the private sector.

Organizations remain a vital sociological topic, but organizational sociology, as a subfield, has evolved significantly since its inception. In this paper, I argue that organization sociology is becoming increasingly disconnected from organizational theory, as currently conceived. The focus of sociological research on organizations has become more empirically grounded in the study of social problems and how organizations contribute to them. Sociologists continue to see organizations as important actors in society that play a role in shaping social order and as contexts in which social processes play out. I propose two main sociological approaches for organizational research, which I describe as “organizations within society” and “society within organizations.” The first approach examines the role of organizations as building blocks of social structure and as social actors in their own right. The second approach treats organizations as platforms and locations of social interactions and the building of community. These approaches are somewhat disconnected from the sort of grand theorizing that characterizes much of organizational theory. I argue that the problem-oriented sociology of these two approaches offers a vital way for organizational scholars to expand and theoretically revitalize the field.

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are increasingly used for day-to-day operations in healthcare. Each has a relatively limited scope or task, and several find application in managerial and organizational processes. More and more, AI and machine learning (ML) devices have received US FDA approval in the last decade. This chapter covers the main AI applications in healthcare, with a focus on organizational AI solutions (administrative AI), the main AI developers, their investment and real-world data and case studies in healthcare and other sectors. AI can be applied in resource management and procurement, resource allocation, clinical case management, staff work shift scheduling and handling of emergencies. AI applications are becoming ubiquitous in hospital (e.g. emergency room and operating theatre) and outpatient settings (e.g. ambulatory care and dentistry clinics). Their implementation is expected to bring direct benefits for patient care and satisfaction. This chapter gives a broad definition of AI in healthcare settings, with a focus on administrative applications and their use in case study data.