The time is now for action research

Despite highly systematic methods for identifying priority problems and assessing intervention effects, the recent study by Tourgeman-Bashkin and colleagues would not be considered rigorous by conventional standards of validity, nor would its sample size of three units impress policymakers eager to promote large-scale change through improvement programs. Yet, study findings suggest that no single intervention would have accomplished as much as the action research approach the authors’ employed. This perspective argues that although action research may lend itself to neither clean comparisons of intervention and control units over time nor far-reaching improvement campaigns, its advantages, including responsiveness to context, emphasis on implementation and sustainability, and insight about underlying mechanisms of change, make rigorous action research a highly attractive alternative for engendering real world improvement

Operational Failures and Problem Solving: An Empirical Study of Incident Reporting

Operational failures occur in all industries with consequences that range from minor inconveniences to major catastrophes. Many organizations have implemented incident reporting systems to highlight actual and potential operational failures in order to encourage problem solving and prevent subsequent failures. Our study is among the first to develop and empirically test theory regarding which reported operational failures are likely to spur problem solving. We hypothesize that problem solving activities are especially likely to follow reported operational failures that provoke financial and legal liability risks. We also hypothesize that management commitment to problem solving, enacted through managers' communication and engagement practices, can encourage frontline workers to conduct problem solving. We test our hypotheses in the health care context, in which the use of incident reporting systems to highlight operational failures is widespread. Using data on nearly 7,500 reported incidents from a single hospital, we find support for our hypotheses. Our findings suggest that frontline workers' participation in problem solving is motivated by some inherent characteristics of the problems as well as by particular management practices.

Managerial practices that promote voice and taking charge among frontline workers

Process-improvement ideas often come from frontline workers who speak up by voicing concerns about problems and by taking charge to resolve them. We hypothesize that organization-wide process-improvement campaigns encourage both forms of speaking up, especially voicing concern. We also hypothesize that the effectiveness of such campaigns depends on the prior responsiveness of line managers. We test our hypotheses in the healthcare setting, in which problems are frequent. We use data on nearly 7,500 reported incidents extracted from an incident-reporting system that is similar to those used by many organizations to encourage employees to communicate about operational problems. We find that process-improvement campaigns prompt employees to speak up and that campaigns increase the frequency of voicing concern to a greater extent than they increase taking charge. We also find that campaigns are particularly effective in eliciting taking charge among employees whose managers have been relatively unresponsive to previous instances of speaking up. Our results therefore indicate that organization-wide campaigns can encourage voicing concerns and taking charge, two important forms of speaking up. These results can enable managers to solicit ideas from frontline workers that lead to performance improvement.

What Epistemic Reasons Are For: Against the Belief-Sandwich Distinction

The standard view says that epistemic normativity is normativity of belief. If you’re an evidentialist, for example, you’ll think that all epistemic reasons are reasons to believe what your evidence supports. Here we present a line of argument that pushes back against this standard view. If the argument is right, there are epistemic reasons for things other than belief. The argument starts with evidentialist commitments and proceeds by a series of cases, each containing a reason. As the cases progress, the reasons change from counting in favor of things like having a belief to things like performing ordinary actions. We argue that each of those reasons is epistemic. If the argument succeeds, we should think there are epistemic reasons to consider hypotheses, conduct thought and physical experiments, extend one’s evidence, and perform mundane tasks like eating a sandwich, just as there are epistemic reasons to believe what one’s evidence supports

An intraorganizational model for developing and spreading quality improvement innovations

BACKGROUND Recent policy reforms encourage quality improvement (QI) innovations in primary care, but practitioners lack clear guidance regarding spread inside organizations. PURPOSE We designed this study to identify how large organizations can facilitate intraorganizational spread of QI innovations. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH We conducted ethnographic observation and interviews in a large, multispecialty, community-based medical group that implemented three QI innovations across 10 primary care sites using a new method for intraorganizational process development and spread. We compared quantitative outcomes achieved through the group's traditional versus new method, created a process model describing the steps in the new method, and identified barriers and facilitators at each step. FINDINGS The medical group achieved substantial improvement using its new method of intraorganizational process development and spread of QI innovations: standard work for rooming and depression screening, vaccine error rates and order compliance, and Pap smear error rates. Our model details nine critical steps for successful intraorganizational process development (set priorities, assess the current state, develop the new process, and measure and refine) and spread (develop support, disseminate information, facilitate peer-to-peer training, reinforce, and learn and adapt). Our results highlight the importance of utilizing preexisting organizational structures such as established communication channels, standardized roles, common workflows, formal authority, and performance measurement and feedback systems when developing and spreading QI processes inside an organization. In particular, we detail how formal process advocate positions in each site for each role can facilitate the spread of new processes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Successful intraorganizational spread is possible and sustainable. Developing and spreading new QI processes across sites inside an organization requires creating a shared understanding of the necessary process steps, considering the barriers that may arise at each step, and leveraging preexisting organizational structures to facilitate intraorganizational process development and spread.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially

Improving health care quality and safety: the role of collective learning

Despite decades of effort to improve quality and safety in health care, this goal feels increasingly elusive. Successful examples of improvement are infrequently replicated. This scoping review synthesizes 76 empirical or conceptual studies (out of 1208 originally screened) addressing learning in quality or safety improvement, that were published in selected health care and management journals between January 2000 and December 2014 to deepen understanding of the role that collective learning plays in quality and safety improvement. We categorize learning activities using a theoretical model that shows how leadership and environmental factors support collective learning processes and practices, and in turn team and organizational improvement outcomes. By focusing on quality and safety improvement, our review elaborates the premise of learning theory that leadership, environment, and processes combine to create conditions that promote learning. Specifically, we found that learning for quality and safety improvement includes experimentation (including deliberate experimentation, improvisation, learning from failures, exploration, and exploitation), internal and external knowledge acquisition, performance monitoring and comparison, and training. Supportive learning environments are characterized by team characteristics like psychological safety, appreciation of differences, openness to new ideas social motivation, and team autonomy; team contextual factors including learning resources like time for reflection, access to knowledge, organizational capabilities; incentives; and organizational culture, strategy, and structure; and external environmental factors including institutional pressures, environmental dynamism and competitiveness and learning collaboratives. Lastly learning in the context of quality and safety improvement requires leadership that reinforces learning through actions and behaviors that affect people, such as coaching and trust building, and through influencing contextual factors, including providing resources, developing culture, and taking strategic actions that support improvement. Our review highlights the importance of leadership in both promoting a supportive learning environment and implementing learning processes

Translating the patient perception of integrated care survey to measure integrated care in The Netherlands : Combining equivalence and contextualization approaches for optimal results

Introduction: An increase in initiatives to improve integration of care provides the need for instruments that assess the degree of integrated care as perceived by patients across cultural contexts. This article aims to explain the relevance of equivalence and contextualization approaches in translating and adapting the Patient Perception of Integrated Care Survey developed in the US for use in the Netherlands. Theory and methods: The World Health Organization guidelines guided the translation and adaptation, including a forward-backward translation and patient-feedback through informal contacts (N4) and cognitive interviews (N14). Results: The forward-backward translation produced a Dutch version of the Patient Perception of Integrated Care Survey with minor adaptations. Patients evaluated the survey as very relevant. Alterations resulted from structural and cultural differences and specificities of patients with chronic conditions. Conclusions and discussion: A context-sensitive translation process is key to developing instruments for cross-cultural health research. Our results show that equivalence- and contextualization methods provide equally relevant, yet substantially different contributions to the translation outcome and should both be incorporated when translating instruments for different cultural contexts. The results support the applicability of the Patient Perception of Integrated Care Survey in the Netherlands and are promising for its adoption in other cultural contexts

Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid Differentiation

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is one of the less common types of kidney cancer and generally portends a more favorable prognosis. RCC with sarcomatoid differentiation has a more aggressive clinical course with poor outcomes. Four cases of chRCC with varying degrees of sarcomatoid differentiation were retrospectively reviewed at our institution, and clinicopathologic data as well as clinical courses were reported. Patients with higher degrees of sarcomatoid differentiation and larger tumors at presentation generally had and worse overall survival. chRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation portends a poor prognosis with limited data on systemic treatment options for metastatic disease

Can organisational culture of teams be a lever for integrating care? An exploratory study

Introduction: Organisational culture is believed to be an important facilitator for better integrated care, yet how organisational culture impacts integrated care remains underspecified. In an exploratory study, we assessed the relationship between organisational culture in primary care centres as perceived by primary care teams and patient-perceived levels of integrated care. Theory and methods: We analysed a sample of 2,911 patient responses and 17 healthcare teams in four primary care centres. We used three-level ordered logistic regression models to account for the nesting of patients within health care teams within primary care centres. Results: Our results suggest a non-linear relationship between organisational culture at the team level and integrated care. A combination of different culture types—including moderate levels of production-oriented, hierarchical and team-oriented cultures and low or high levels of adhocracy cultures—related to higher patient-perceived levels of integrated care. Conclusions and discussion: Organisational culture at the level of healthcare teams has significant associations with patient-perceived integrated care. Our results may be valuable for primary care organisations in their efforts to compose healthcare teams that are predisposed to providing better integrated care