Technology meets tradition: The perceived impact of the introduction of information and communication technology on ward rounds in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Public policy in many health systems is currently dominated by the quest to find ways to 'do more with less'-to achieve better outcomes at a reduced cost. The success or failure of initiatives in support of this quest are often understood in terms of an adversarial dynamic or struggle between the professional logics of medicine and of management. Here, we use the case of the introduction of information and communication technology (ICT) to a well-established ritual of medical autonomy (the medical ward round) to articulate a more nuanced explanation of how and why new ways of working with technology are accepted and adopted (or not). METHODS: The study was conducted across four intensive care units (ICUs) in major teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Using interviews, we examined 48 doctors' perceptions of the impact of ICT on ward round practice. We applied the concept of institutional logics to frame our analysis. Interview transcripts were analysed using a hybrid of deductive and inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The doctors displayed a complex engagement with the technology that belies simplistic characterisations of medical rejection of managerial encroachment. In fact, they selectively welcomed into the ward round aspects of the technology which reinforced the doctor's place in the healthcare hierarchy and which augmented their role as scientists. At the same time, they guarded against allowing managerial logic embedded in ICT to de-emphasise their embodied subjectivity in relation to the patient as a person rather than as a collection of parameters. CONCLUSION: ICT can force the disruption of some aspects of existing routines, even where these are long-established rituals. Resistance arose when the new technology did not fit with the 'logic of care'. Incorporation of the logic of care into the design and customisation of clinical information systems is a challenge and potentially counterproductive, because it could attempt to apply a technological fix to what is essentially a social problem. However, there are significant opportunities to ensure that new technologies do not obstruct doctors' roles as carers nor disrupt the embodied relationship they need to have with patients.

How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Communities of Practice (CoPs) are promoted in the healthcare sector as a means of generating and sharing knowledge and improving organisational performance. However CoPs vary considerably in the way they are structured and operate in the sector. If CoPs are to be cultivated to benefit healthcare organisations, there is a need to examine and understand their application to date. To this end, a systematic review of the literature on CoPs was conducted, to examine how and why CoPs have been established and whether they have been shown to improve healthcare practice. METHODS: Peer-reviewed empirical research papers on CoPs in the healthcare sector were identified by searching electronic health-databases. Information on the purpose of establishing CoPs, their composition, methods by which members communicate and share information or knowledge, and research methods used to examine effectiveness was extracted and reviewed. Also examined was evidence of whether or not CoPs led to a change in healthcare practice. RESULTS: Thirty-one primary research papers and two systematic reviews were identified and reviewed in detail. There was a trend from descriptive to evaluative research. The focus of CoPs in earlier publications was on learning and exchanging information and knowledge, whereas in more recently published research, CoPs were used more as a tool to improve clinical practice and to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practice. Means by which members communicated with each other varied, but in none of the primary research studies was the method of communication examined in terms of the CoP achieving its objectives. Researchers are increasing their efforts to assess the effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare, however the interventions have been complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to directly attribute the change to the CoP. CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with Wenger and colleagues' description, CoPs in the healthcare sector vary in form and purpose. While researchers are increasing their efforts to examine the impact of CoPs in healthcare, cultivating CoPs to improve healthcare performance requires a greater understanding of how to establish and support CoPs to maximise their potential to improve healthcare.

A realist evaluation of the role of communities of practice in changing healthcare practice.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations seeking to manage knowledge and improve organisational performance are increasingly investing in communities of practice (CoPs). Such investments are being made in the absence of empirical evidence demonstrating the impact of CoPs in improving the delivery of healthcare. A realist evaluation is proposed to address this knowledge gap. Underpinned by the principle that outcomes are determined by the context in which an intervention is implemented, a realist evaluation is well suited to understand the role of CoPs in improving healthcare practice. By applying a realist approach, this study will explore the following questions: What outcomes do CoPs achieve in healthcare? Do these outcomes translate into improved practice in healthcare? What are the contexts and mechanisms by which CoPs improve healthcare? METHODS: The realist evaluation will be conducted by developing, testing, and refining theories on how, why, and when CoPs improve healthcare practice. When collecting data, context will be defined as the setting in which the CoP operates; mechanisms will be the factors and resources that the community offers to influence a change in behaviour or action; and outcomes will be defined as a change in behaviour or work practice that occurs as a result of accessing resources provided by the CoP. DISCUSSION: Realist evaluation is being used increasingly to study social interventions where context plays an important role in determining outcomes. This study further enhances the value of realist evaluations by incorporating a social network analysis component to quantify the structural context associated with CoPs. By identifying key mechanisms and contexts that optimise the effectiveness of CoPs, this study will contribute to creating a framework that will guide future establishment and evaluation of CoPs in healthcare.