| 1. |
- Øvretveit, John, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementing organization and management innovations in Swedish healthcare : Lessons from a comparison of 12 cases
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Health Organization & Management. - : Emerald Group Publishing Limited. - 1477-7266 .- 1758-7247. ; 26:2, s. 237-257
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to compare the implementation of twelve different "organization and management innovations" (OMIs) in Swedish healthcare, to discover the generic and specific factors important for successful healthcare improvement change in a public health system.Design/methodology/approach: Longitudinal cross-case comparison of twelve case studies was employed, where each case study used a common framework for collecting data about the process of change, the content of change, the context and the intermediate and final outcomes.Findings: Clinical leaders played a more important part in the development of these successful service innovations than managers. Strategies for and patterns of change implementation were found to differ according to the type of innovation. Internal organisational context factors played a significant role in the development of nearly all, but external factors did not. "Developmental evolution" better described the change process than "implementation".Research limitations/implications: The 12 cases were all of relatively successful change processes: some unsuccessful examples would have provided additional testing of of the hypotheses about what would predict successful innovation which were used in the case comparison. The cross-case comparative hypothesis testing method allows systematic comparison if the case data are collected using similar frameworks, but this approach to management research requires considerable resources and coordination.Practical implications: Management innovations that improve patient care can be carried out successfully by senior clinicians, under certain circumstances. A systematic approach is important both for developing and adapting an innovation to a changing situation. A significant amount of time was required for all involved, which could be reduced by "fast-tracking" approval for some type of change.Originality/value: This is the first empirical report comparing longitudinal and contextualised findings from a number of case studies of different organisational and management healthcare innovations. The findings made possible explanations for success factors and useful practical recommendations for conditions needed to nurture such innovation in public healthcare.
|
|
