Creating conditions for effective knowledge brokering: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Process improvement in healthcare is informed by knowledge from the private sector. Skilled individuals may aid the adoption of this knowledge by frontline care delivery workers through knowledge brokering. However, the effectiveness of those who broker knowledge is limited when the context they work within proves unreceptive to their efforts. We therefore need greater insight into the contextual conditions that support individuals to broker process improvement knowledge to the frontline of care delivery, and how policy makers and organizations might generate such conditions. METHODS: Our research took place in a healthcare system within an Australian State. We undertook a qualitative, embedded single case study over the four year period of a process improvement intervention encompassing 57 semi-structured interviews (with knowledge brokers, policy makers, and executive sponsors), 12 focus groups, and 137 h of observation, which included the frontline implementation of actual process improvement initiatives, where knowledge brokering took place. RESULTS: We identified four phases of the process improvement intervention that moved towards a more mature collaboration within which knowledge brokering by improvement advisors began to emerge as effective. In the first phase knowledge brokering was not established. In the second phase, whilst knowledge brokering had been initiated, the knowledge being brokered lacked legitimacy amongst frontline practitioners, resulting in resistance. Only in the fourth and final phase of the intervention did the collective experience of policy makers result in reflections on how they might engender a more receptive context for knowledge brokering. CONCLUSION: We highlight a number of suggested actions that policy makers might consider, if they wish to engender contextual conditions that support knowledge brokering. Policy makers might consider: ensuring they respect local context and experience, by pulling good ideas upward, rather than imposing foreign knowledge from on high; facilitating the lateral diffusion of knowledge by building cultural linkages between people and organizations; strengthening collaboration, not competition, so that trans-organisational flow of ideas might be encouraged; being friend, not foe, to healthcare organizations on their knowledge integration journey. In sum, we suggest that top-down approaches to facilitating the diffusion and adoption of new ideas ought to be reconsidered.

Health information systems evaluation frameworks: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of health information systems (HISs) is complicated because of the complex nature of the health care domain. Various studies have proposed different frameworks to reduce the complexity in the assessment of these systems. The aim of these frameworks is to provide a set of guidelines for the evaluation of the adequacy of health care information systems. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to analyse studies on the evaluation of HISs by applying a content, context and process (CCP) framework to address the 'who', 'what', 'how', 'when', and 'why' of the evaluation processes used. This will allow for a better understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of various HISs evaluation frameworks, and will pave the way for developing a more complete framework for HISs. METHOD: A systematic literature review on HIS evaluation studies was undertaken to identify the currently available HIS evaluation frameworks. Five academic databases were selected to conduct this systematic literature review. RESULTS: Most of the studies only address some, but not all, of the five main questions, i.e. the who, what, how, when, why, and that there was a lack of consensus in the way these questions were addressed. The critical role of context was also largely neglected in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of HISs is complex. The health care domain is highly context sensitive and in order to have a complete assessment of HISs, consideration of contextual factors is necessary. Specifically, to have the right set of criteria to measure the 'what', the answer to the 'who' of the evaluation is necessary.

Process redesign for time-based emergency admission targets.

Purpose Hospitals have used process redesign to increase the efficiency of the emergency department (ED) to cope with increasing demand. While there are published studies suggesting a positive outcome, recent reviews have reported that it is difficult to conclude that these approaches are effective as a result of substandard research methodology. The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of hospital staff on the impact of a process redesign initiative on quality of care. Design/methodology/approach A retrospective qualitative case study examining a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) initiative in a large metropolitan hospital from 2009 to 2010. Non-probability sampling identified interview subjects who, through their participation in the redesign initiative, had a detailed understanding of the implementation and outcomes of the initiative. Between April 2012 and January 2013 26 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed with thematic content analysis. Findings There were four important findings. First, when asked to comment on the impact of the LSS implementation, without prompting the staff spoke of quality of care. Second, there was little agreement among the participants as to whether the project had been successful. Third, despite the recognition of the need for a coordinated effort across the hospital to improve ED access, the redesign process was not successful in reducing existing divides among clinicians and among managers and clinicians. Finally, staff expressed tension between production processes to move patients more quickly and their duty of care to their patients as individuals. Originality/value One of the first studies to explore the impact of process redesign through in-depth interviews with participating staff, this study adds further evidence that organisations implementing process redesign must ensure the supporting management practices are in place.

Stakeholder perspectives on outpatient services performance: what patients, clinicians and managers want to know.

The development of performance measures in outpatient services is trailing in the wake of an emphasis on inpatient measures. Research was undertaken at The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital (RVEEH) to determine key areas for the development of performance measures in eye outpatient services from the perspective of three stakeholder groups: clinicians, managers and patients. The study identified four key areas for the development of performance measurement: waiting time to first outpatient appointment, patient discharge from outpatient clinics, waiting time in clinic and patient throughput. It was also shown that there are some significant differences of opinion between stakeholder groups. Such similarities and differences are unlikely to be unique to RVEEH and may serve as useful prompts for other organisations considering outpatient performance measures.