Technology adoption and implementation in organisations: comparative case studies of 12 English NHS Trusts

Objectives: To understand organisational technology adoption (initiation, adoption decision, implementation) by looking at the different types of innovation knowledge used during this process. Design: Qualitative, multisite, comparative case study design. Setting: One primary care and 11 acute care organisations (trusts) across all health regions in England in the context of infection prevention and control. Participants and data analysis: 121 semistructured individual and group interviews with 109 informants, involving clinical and non-clinical staff from all organisational levels and various professional groups. Documentary evidence and field notes were also used. 38 technology adoption processes were analysed using an integrated approach combining inductive and deductive reasoning. Main findings: Those involved in the process variably accessed three types of innovation knowledge: ‘awareness’ (information that an innovation exists), ‘principles’ (information about an innovation’s functioning principles) and ‘how-to’ (information required to use an innovation properly at individual and organisational levels). Centralised (national, government-led) and local sources were used to obtain this knowledge. Localised professional networks were preferred sources for all three types of knowledge. Professional backgrounds influenced an asymmetric attention to different types of innovation knowledge. When less attention was given to ‘how-to’ compared with ‘principles’ knowledge at the early stages of the process, this contributed to 12 cases of incomplete implementation or discontinuance after initial adoption. Conclusions: Potential adopters and change agents often overlooked or undervalued ‘how-to’ knowledge. Balancing ‘principles’ and ‘how-to’ knowledge early in the innovation process enhanced successful technology adoption and implementation by considering efficacy as well as strategic, structural and cultural fit with the organisation’s context. This learning is critical given the policy emphasis for health organisations to be innovation-ready

Health systems in transition: professional identity work in the context of shifting institutional logics

We investigate how established professionals manage their identities in the face of identity threats from a contested shift in the professional logic that characterizes their field. To do so, we draw on interviews with 113 physicians from five European transition countries who faced pressure for change in their professional identities due to a shift in the logic of healthcare from a logic of "narrow specialism" in primary care that characterized the Soviet health system to a new logic of "generalism" that characterizes primary care in the West. We found three important forms of professional identity threats experienced by physicians during this period - professional values conflict, status loss, and social identity conflict. In addition, we identified three forms of identity work - authenticating, reframing, and cultural repositioning - that the professionals who successfully transitioned to the new identity performed in order to reconstruct their professional identities so that they were aligned with the new logic. Based on these findings, we present a model of how established professionals change their professional identities as a result of a contested shift in the professional logic of their field and discuss the underlying mechanisms through which this occurs.The authors thank Jason Colquitt and three reviewers for their constructive guidance. Yiannis Kyratsis and Rifat Atun gratefully acknowledge their funding and support from the World Bank and the Global Fund. Gerard George acknowledges the UK’s Economic & Social Research Council Professorial Fellowship (RES-051-27-0321) and the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 1 grant

Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in healthcare. study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We know that patient care can be improved by implementing evidence-based innovations and applying research findings linked to good practice. Successfully implementing innovations in complex organisations, such as the UK's National Health Service (NHS), is often challenging as multiple contextual dynamics mediate the process. Research studies have explored the challenges of introducing innovations into healthcare settings and have contributed to a better understanding of why potentially useful innovations are not always implemented in practice, even if backed by strong evidence. Mediating factors include health policy and health system influences, organisational factors, and individual and professional attitudes, including decision makers' perceptions of innovation evidence. There has been limited research on how different forms of evidence are accessed and utilised by organisational decision makers during innovation adoption. We also know little about how diverse healthcare professionals (clinicians, administrators) make sense of evidence and how this collective sensemaking mediates the uptake of innovations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study will involve nine comparative case study sites of acute care organisations grouped into three regional clusters across England. Each of the purposefully selected sites represents a variety of trust types and organisational contexts. We will use qualitative methods, in-depth interviews, observation of key meetings, and systematic analysis of relevant secondary data to understand the rationale and challenges involved in sourcing and utilising innovation evidence in the empirical setting of infection prevention and control. We will use theories of innovation adoption and sensemaking in organisations to interpret the data. The research will provide lessons for the uptake and continuous use of innovations in the English and international health systems.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Unlike most innovation studies, which involve single-level analysis, our study will explore the innovation-adoption process at multiple embedded levels: micro (individual), meso (organisational), and macro (interorganisational). By comparing and contrasting across the nine sites, each with different organisational contexts, local networks, leadership styles, and different innovations considered for adoption, the findings of the study will have wide relevance. The research will produce actionable findings responding to the political and economic need for healthcare organisations to be innovation-ready.</p

Medical Leadership and Management in the United Kingdom

Objective: This article aims to outline the historical development of medical leadership in the United Kingdom (UK), present recent advances, discuss professional development and future prospects. Conclusions: With increasing involvement of medical professionals in top managerial roles in the UK over the last 30 years, leadership development initiatives have been growing steadily and there is increasing recognition of the need for leadership and management skills for doctors. Such skills can help to greatly improve patient care as well as enhance organisational effectiveness and productivity. The central involvement of professional bodies such as the UK Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management, and the establishment of medical fellowship schemes, have provided a solid foundation for a new generation of aspiring medical leaders but there is still a long way to go to achieve a higher degree of professionalism for clinical leadership in the UK. The evidence base is weak such that integrated efforts by clinicians and management academics have much to offer in achieving the vision of socially responsible, clinically relevant and research-informed medical leadership training

Implementing infection prevention practices across European hospitals: an in-depth qualitative assessment

Objective: The Prevention of Hospital Infections by Intervention and Training (PROHIBIT) project included a cluster-randomised, stepped wedge, controlled study to evaluate multiple strategies to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection. We report an in-depth investigation of the main barriers, facilitators and contextual factors relevant to successfully implementing these strategies in European acute care hospitals. Methods: Qualitative comparative case study in 6 of the 14 European PROHIBIT hospitals. Data were collected through interviews with key stakeholders and ethnographic observations conducted during 2-day site visits, before and 1 year into the PROHIBIT intervention. Qualitative measures of implementation success included intervention fidelity, adaptation to local context and satisfaction with the intervention programme. Results: Three meta-themes emerged related to implementation success: ‘implementation agendas’, ‘resources’ and ‘boundary-spanning’. Hospitals established unique implementation agendas that, while not always aligned with the project goals, shaped subsequent actions. Successful implementation required having sufficient human and material resources and dedicated change agents who helped make the intervention an institutional priority. The salary provided for a dedicated study nurse was a key facilitator. Personal commitment of influential individuals and boundary spanners helped overcome resource restrictions and intrainstitutional segregation. Conclusion: This qualitative study revealed patterns across cases that were associated with successful implementation. Consideration of the intervention–context relation was indispensable to understanding the observed outcomes

From spreading to embedding innovation in health care: Implications for theory and practice

In broad terms, current thinking and literature on the spread of innovations in health care presents it as the study of two unconnected processes—diffusion across adopting organizations and implementation within adopting organizations. Evidence from the health care environment and beyond, however, shows the significance and systemic nature of postadoption challenges in sustainably implementing innovations at scale. There is often only partial diffusion of innovative practices, initial adoption that is followed by abandonment, incomplete or tokenistic implementation, and localized innovation modifications that do not provide feedback to inform global innovation designs. Critical Theoretical Analysis Such important barriers to realizing the benefits of innovation question the validity of treating diffusion and implementation as unconnected spheres of activity. We argue that theorizing the spread of innovations should be refocused toward what we call embedding innovation—the question of how innovations are successfully implemented at scale. This involves making the experience of implementation a central concern for the system-level spread of innovations rather than a localized concern of adopting organizations. Insight/Advance To contribute to this shift in theoretical focus, we outline three mechanisms that connect the experience of implementing innovations locally to their diffusion globally within a health care system: learning, adapting, and institutionalizing. These mechanisms support the distribution of the embedding work for innovation across time and space. Practical Implications Applying this focus enables us to identify the self-limiting tensions within existing top-down and bottom-up approaches to spreading innovation. Furthermore, we outline new approaches to spreading innovation, which better exploit these embedding mechanisms