Search results

Early writings about teamwork in healthcare emphasized that healthcare providers needed to evolve from a team of experts into an expert team. This is no longer enough. As patients, accreditation bodies, and regulators increasingly demand that care is coordinated, safe, of high quality, and efficient, it is clear that healthcare organizations increasingly must function and learn not only as expert teams but also as expert multiteam systems (MTSs).

In this chapter, we offer a portrait of the robust, and albeit complex, multiteam structures that many healthcare systems are developing in order to adapt to rapid changes in regulatory and financial pressures while simultaneously improving patient safety, quality, and performance.

The notion of continuous improvement rooted in continuous learning has been embraced as a battle cry from the boardroom to the bedside, and the MTS concept offers a meaningful lens through which we can begin to understand, study, and improve these complex organizational systems dedicated to tackling some of the most important goals of our time.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the main reasons driving the anti‐vaccination movement (AVM) and relate similarities and differences of the AVM with the anti‐consumption of other products.

The paper conducts thematic analysis of various online sources, including medical journals, blogs, science articles and business/social science databases.

First, the paper outlines the main themes (religion, freedom of choice, risk, and uncertainty) driving the anti‐consumption of vaccines. Second, it explains why the AVM is a unique and paradoxical form of anti‐consumption. Third, although much anti‐consumption behaviour is motivated by the belief that rejecting certain acts of consumption may be beneficial to society, the paper uses the AVM to show that not all anti‐consumption behavior has clear‐cut benefits for society.

While this is predominately a conceptual paper, a commentary on the AVM has never been attempted by business scholars. This is surprising since business scholars are able to bring a more impartial viewpoint to the debate than both the medical establishment and proponents of natural therapy. As this paper is not associated with medical interests, nor the AVM, the focus is on the welfare of consumers and as such, a more detached perspective may be useful in this controversial area.

Since the AVM debate is filled with much uncertainty, the paper recommends a more balanced/respectful approach by the medical community, pro‐vaccinators and the AVM.

Unlike previous work in the area, this research intersects commercial, societal, and medical interests. It also highlights AVM as an interesting case where large groups of people sharing similar anti‐consumption behaviours are actually incompatible with one another.