Search results

As a discipline, health organisation and management is focused on health-specific, collective behaviours and activities, whose empirical and theoretical scholarship remains under-utilised in the field of implementation science. This under-engagement between fields potentially constrains the understanding of mechanisms influencing the implementation of evidence-based innovations in health care. The aim of this viewpoint article is to examine how a selection of theories, models and frameworks (theoretical approaches) have been applied to better understand phenomena at the micro, meso and macro systems levels for the implementation of health care innovations. The purpose of which is to illustrate the potential applicability and complementarity of embedding health organisation and management scholarship within the study of implementation science.

The authors begin by introducing the two fields, before exploring how exemplary theories, models and frameworks have been applied to study the implementation of innovations in the health organisation and management literature. In this viewpoint article, the authors briefly reviewed a targeted collection of articles published in the Journal of Health Organization and Management (as a proxy for the broader literature) and identified the theories, models and frameworks they applied in implementation studies. The authors then present a more detailed exploration of three interdisciplinary theories and how they were applied across three different levels of health systems: normalization process theory (NPT) at the micro individual and interpersonal level; institutional logics at the meso organisational level; and complexity theory at the macro policy level. These examples are used to illustrate practical considerations when implementing change in health care organisations that can and have been used across various levels of the health system beyond these presented examples.

Within the Journal of Health Organization and Management, the authors identified 31 implementation articles, utilising 34 theories, models or frameworks published in the last five years. As an example of how theories, models and frameworks can be applied at the micro individual and interpersonal levels, behavioural theories originating from psychology and sociology (e.g. NPT) were used to guide the selection of appropriate implementation strategies or explain implementation outcomes based on identified barriers and enablers to implementing innovations of interest. Projects aiming to implement change at the meso organisational level can learn from the application of theories such as institutional logics, which help elucidate how relationships at the macro and micro-level have a powerful influence on successful or unsuccessful organisational action. At the macro policy level, complexity theory represented a promising direction for implementation science by considering health care organisations as complex adaptive systems.

This paper illustrates the utility of a range of theories, models and frameworks for implementation science, from a health organisation and management standpoint. The authors’ viewpoint article suggests that increased crossovers could contribute to strengthening both disciplines and our understanding of how to support the implementation of evidence-based innovations in health care.

At the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, health care was at the centre of the crisis. New demands made existing organizational practices and services obsolete. Primary health care had a great deal of responsibility for COVID-19-related care. The pandemic demanded effective leadership to manage the new difficulties. This paper aims to explore experiences and perceptions of managers in primary health care in relation to their efforts to manage the COVID-19 crisis in their everyday work.

The authors used a qualitative approach based on 14 semi-structured interviews with managers in primary health care from four regions in Sweden. The interviews were conducted during September to December 2020. Data were analysed using conventional qualitative content analysis.

Data analysis yielded three categories: lonely in decision-making; stretched to the limit; and proud to have coped. The participants felt lonely in their decision-making, and they were stretched to the limit of their own and the organization’s capacity. The psychosocial working conditions in primary care worsened considerably during the pandemic because demands on leaders increased while their ability to control the work situation decreased. However, they also expressed pride that they and their employees had managed the situation by being flexible and having a common focus.

Looking ahead and using lessons learnt, and apart from making wise decisions under pressure, an important implication for primary health-care leaders is to not underestimate the power of acknowledging the virtues of humanity and justice during a crisis. Continuing professional education for leaders focusing on crisis leadership could help prepare leaders for future crises.

The aim of this study is to explore and discuss key challenges associated with having stakeholders take part in co-designing a health care intervention to increase mobility in older medical patients admitted to two medical departments at two hospitals in Denmark.

The study used a qualitative design to investigate the challenges of co-designing an intervention in five workshops involving health professionals, patients and relatives. “Challenges” are understood as “situations of being faced with something that needs great mental or physical effort in order to be done successfully and therefore tests a person's ability” (Cambridge Dictionary). Thematic content analysis was conducted with a background in the analytical question: “What key challenges arise in the material in relation to the co-design process?”.

Two key challenges were identified: engagement and facilitation. These consisted of five sub-themes: recruiting patients and relatives, involving physicians, adjusting to a new researcher role, utilizing contextual knowledge and handling ethical dilemmas.

The population of patients and relatives participating in the workshops was small, which likely affected the co-design process.

Researchers who want to use co-design must be prepared for the extra time required and the need for skills concerning engagement, communication, facilitation, negotiation and resolution of conflict. Time is also required for ethical discussions and considerations concerning different types of knowledge creation.

Engaging stakeholders in co-design processes is increasingly encouraged. This study documents the key challenges in such processes and reports practical implications.

To explore the mechanisms of the implementation strategy, “oilcloth sessions” and understand and explain the ripple effects of oilcloth sessions as a strategy to implement a new emergency department.

A qualitative design was used whereby data were collected using field notes from an ethnographic study of the oilcloth sessions and follow-up semi-structured interviews with staff, managers and key employees who participated in the oilcloth sessions. The data analysis was inspired by the realist evaluation approach of generative causality proposed by Pawson and Tilley.

The primary ripple effect was that the oilcloth sessions were used for different purposes than the proposed program theory, including being used as: (1) a stage, (2) a battlefield, (3) a space for imagination and (4) a strategic management tool influencing the implementation outcomes. The results bring essential knowledge that may help to explain why and how a well-defined implementation strategy has unplanned outcomes.

Unintended outcomes of implementation strategies are an underexplored issue. This study may help implementation researchers rethink the activities required to reduce unintended negative outcomes or explore potential unplanned outcomes and, in this way, hinder or enhance outcomes, effectiveness and sustainability. Future studies within implementation research should incorporate attention to unintended outcomes to fully understand the impact of implementation strategies.

This paper seeks to present a theoretical framework with the aim of contributing to improved understanding of how reflection can provide a mechanism to integrate research‐based knowledge with the pre‐existing practice‐based knowledge.

The paper begins with an explanation of important concepts: research‐based and practice‐based knowledge, four levels of action and two modes of learning. Two mini cases concerning managers in the public sector in Sweden then provide an illustration of how research‐based knowledge can be utilized to challenge practice‐based knowledge. The concluding discussion addresses some of the challenges involved in achieving reflection in the workplace that utilizes research‐based knowledge.

The reflection programmes had several characteristics that facilitated their implementation: they achieved a balance between the workplace demands on the participating managers and time required for the reflection; the participants were specifically recruited, had full management support and were highly motivated to be part of the reflection groups; the facilitators played key roles in structuring the managers' discussions and linking their experiences to relevant research‐based knowledge.

Methodological limitations of the cases constrain the conclusions to be drawn from these studies. However, it should be emphasized that the case studies were intended primarily as illustrations of how workplace reflection can be used to integrate research‐based and practice‐based knowledge. Obviously, there is a risk of social desirability bias because the interviewer was also involved in developing and implementing the reflection programmes. She also participated as a supervisor in mini case 2.

The literature on reflection has largely focused on reflection in the context of education, training and preparing for work or a profession. The role of workplace reflection and learning for practitioners and managers in work has received far less attention. The emergence of the evidence‐based practice (EBP) agenda has further highlighted the importance of workplace learning and reflection, as practitioners are increasingly expected to critically appraise research studies and integrate new findings into their practice. A more EBP requires reflecting practitioners who are able to synthesize research‐based knowledge with their own practice‐based knowledge acquired through experience. However, the process of integrating research‐based and practice‐based knowledge has not been the focus of much study.

This study aims to systematically review published empirical research on leadership as a determinant for the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) and to investigate leadership conceptualization and operationalization in this field.

A systematic review with narrative synthesis was conducted. Relevant electronic bibliographic databases and reference lists of pertinent review articles were searched. To be included, a study had to involve empirical research and refer to both leadership and EBP in health care. Study quality was assessed with a structured instrument based on study design.

A total of 17 studies were included. Leadership was mostly viewed as a modifier for implementation success, acting through leadership support. Yet, there was definitional imprecision as well as conceptual inconsistency, and studies seemed to inadequately address situational and contextual factors. Although referring to an organizational factor, the concept was mostly analysed at the individual or group level.

The concept of leadership in implementation science seems to be not fully developed. It is unclear whether attempts to tap the concept of leadership in available instruments truly capture and measure the full range of the diverse leadership elements at various levels. Research in implementation science would benefit from a better integration of research findings from other disciplinary fields. Once a more mature concept has been established, researchers in implementation science could proceed to further elaborate operationalization and measurement.

Although the relevance of leadership in implementation science has been acknowledged, the conceptual base of leadership in this field has received only limited attention.

This paper aims to explore what opportunities for learning practitioners in rheumatology perceive of in their daily practice, using a typology of workplace learning to categorize these opportunities.

Thirty-six practitioners from different professions in rheumatology were interviewed. Data were analyzed using conventional qualitative content analysis with a directed approach, and were categorized according to a typology of formal and informal learning.

The typology was adjusted to fit the categories resulting from the analysis. Further analysis showed that work processes with learning as a by-product in general, and relationships with other people in the workplace in particular, were perceived as important for learning in the workplace. The use of many recognized learning opportunities was lower. Barriers for learning were a perceived low leadership awareness of learning opportunities and factors relating to workload and the organization of work.

The generalizability of results from all qualitative inquiries is limited by nature, and the issue of transferability to other contexts is for the reader to decide. Further studies will need to confirm the results of the study, as well as the proposed enhancement of the typology with which the results were categorized.

The study highlights the importance of relationships in the workplace for informal learning in rheumatology practice. In the clinical context, locally adapted strategies at organizational and individual levels are needed to maximize opportunities for both professional and interprofessional informal learning, taking the importance of personal relationships into account. The findings also suggest a need for increased continuing professional education in the specialty.

The workplace learning typology that was used in the study showed good applicability to empirical health-care study data, but may need further development. The study confirmed that informal workplace learning is an important part of learning in rheumatology. Further studies are needed to clarify how informal and formal learning in the rheumatology clinic may be supported in workplaces with different characteristics.