This excellent paper on implementing culture change in healthcare; theory and practice was published 10 years ago. It's still relevant and there is no need to start another cohort of research on the theory now that "culture" is a big theme for the NHS.
Readers of this blog will know my aversity to the continuous stream of repetitive research - with insufficient action to put it into practice. Culture is a difficult topic. The word defies easy definition yet it's bandied around as both a devil and panacea - a cause of and a solution to the problems facing the NHS.
This paper is available free of charge and is worthy of a read and discussion with your colleagues.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Friday, 15 February 2013
Paper: Improving organizational climate for quality and quality of care: does membership in a collaborative help?
I'm always banging on about the need to publish "negative" results - well, I'm pleased to see this paper has received some air time. The authors investigated whether teams that were a member of a collaborative improvement process ended up with changes in their local organisational culture. The answer is mostly a "no".
"There was no significant effect of collaborative membership on quality-oriented climate and mixed effects on service quality. Doctors' ratings improved significantly more in intervention clinics than in control clinics, staff helpfulness improved less, and timeliness of care declined more. Ratings of doctor-patient communication and willingness to recommend doctor were not significantly different between intervention and comparison clinics."
Improving organizational climate for quality and quality of care: does membership in a collaborative help?
"There was no significant effect of collaborative membership on quality-oriented climate and mixed effects on service quality. Doctors' ratings improved significantly more in intervention clinics than in control clinics, staff helpfulness improved less, and timeliness of care declined more. Ratings of doctor-patient communication and willingness to recommend doctor were not significantly different between intervention and comparison clinics."
Improving organizational climate for quality and quality of care: does membership in a collaborative help?
Labels:
collaborative,
culture,
improvement,
paper,
quality
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Outsiders cannot change NHS Culture - only NHS staff can do that
The responsibility for a change in behaviour and subsequent culture in NHS organisations, lies with the staff employed in those organisations, not with any external body.
NHS Organisation: the NHS is not an organisation by most definitions It is not a singular corporate body..
Definition of "Organisation" from Business Dictionary:
The NHS is a system, and one composed of formal organisations (with differing structures) and informal networks and collaborative structures that include other government bodies (social care) as well as NGO's and social enterprises. The Department of Health is not the NHS. Nor are consultancies, improvement bodies (acting as consultancies), regulators etc. These are their own organisations, with their own cultures with underlying behaviours, that also need to change.
It's easy to tell someone else or another organisation that they need to shift their mindsets and behaviours. However, following the Francis Report, the best place for everyone to start is by looking at their own teams and organisations, assessing their own culture, and making the efforts to change their own personal and group behaviours. This needs to happen not only for those organisations who deliver health care services, but also those organisations that are government funded to support the delivery of healthcare.
For these "outsider" organisations, the cultural and behavioural questions need to be reflective of their own internal behaviours and the impact these have had on NHS delivery organisations. They also need to be an honest appraisal of the cultural norms that exist within, and how these may be played out in the way they "support" the NHS Delivery organisations.
No-one needs a consultant or a clever framework to do these reviews, nor an expensive and complicated change programme. Large change initiatives operate as a displacement activity for not facing up to the details of the changes required. Real change starts with two people sitting down, telling their stories to each other, listening, mulling over the behaviours that may need adapting, then committing to have a go at changing their own behaviour, and to including others in their conversations.
NHS Organisation: the NHS is not an organisation by most definitions It is not a singular corporate body..
Definition of "Organisation" from Business Dictionary:
A" social
unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue
collective goals. All organizations have a management structure that determines
relationships between the different activities and the members, and subdivides
and assigns roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out different
tasks. Organizations are open systems--they affect and are affected by their
environment."
The NHS is a system, and one composed of formal organisations (with differing structures) and informal networks and collaborative structures that include other government bodies (social care) as well as NGO's and social enterprises. The Department of Health is not the NHS. Nor are consultancies, improvement bodies (acting as consultancies), regulators etc. These are their own organisations, with their own cultures with underlying behaviours, that also need to change.
It's easy to tell someone else or another organisation that they need to shift their mindsets and behaviours. However, following the Francis Report, the best place for everyone to start is by looking at their own teams and organisations, assessing their own culture, and making the efforts to change their own personal and group behaviours. This needs to happen not only for those organisations who deliver health care services, but also those organisations that are government funded to support the delivery of healthcare.
For these "outsider" organisations, the cultural and behavioural questions need to be reflective of their own internal behaviours and the impact these have had on NHS delivery organisations. They also need to be an honest appraisal of the cultural norms that exist within, and how these may be played out in the way they "support" the NHS Delivery organisations.
No-one needs a consultant or a clever framework to do these reviews, nor an expensive and complicated change programme. Large change initiatives operate as a displacement activity for not facing up to the details of the changes required. Real change starts with two people sitting down, telling their stories to each other, listening, mulling over the behaviours that may need adapting, then committing to have a go at changing their own behaviour, and to including others in their conversations.
Labels:
behaviour,
change,
culture,
Francis,
Francis report,
improvement,
mindset,
NHS,
organisation
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Is Activity Theory useful for large scale change?
There's no shortage of theories and models for how good practice can be "spread". I'm part fo the problem by generating some of them.... I've recently become curious about the use of Activity Theory as a means of large scale change in healthcare settings. It's a bit of an eclectic theory from the social sciences - but then, PDSA cycles were once an eclectic Japanese theory.
Wikipedia has a good intro. Basically, the benefits of Activity Theory is it combines all system levels into one model of change - from individual through to policy. And I like that.
Greg, Entwistle and Beech have a new paper which considers how AT can be applied usefully in healthcare.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Feb;74(3):305-12. Epub 2011 Mar 1.
Addressing complex healthcare problems in diverse settings: Insights from activity theory.
This is their abstract: "In the UK, approaches to policy implementation, service improvement and quality assurance treat policy, management and clinical care as separate, hierarchical domains. They are often based on the central knowledge transfer (KT) theory idea that best practice solutions to complex problems can be identified and 'rolled out' across organisations. When the designated 'best practice' is not implemented, this is interpreted as local - particularly management - failure. Remedial actions include reiterating policy aims and tightening performance management of solution implementation, frequently to no avail. We propose activity theory (AT) as an alternative approach to identifying and understanding the challenges of addressing complex healthcare problems across diverse settings. AT challenges the KT conceptual separations between levels of policy, management and clinical care. It does not regard knowledge and practice as separable, and does not understand them in the commodified way that has typified some versions of KT theory. Instead, AT focuses on "objects of activity" which can be contested. It sees new practice as emerging from contradiction and understands knowledge and practice as fundamentally entwined, not separate. From an AT perspective, there can be no single best practice. The contributions of AT are that it enables us to understand the dynamics of knowledge-practice in activities rather than between levels. It shows how efforts to reduce variation from best practice may paradoxically remove a key source of practice improvement. After explaining the principles of AT we illustrate its explanatory potential through an ethnographic study of primary healthcare teams responding to a policy aim of reducing inappropriate hospital admissions of older people by the 'best practice' of rapid response teams."
Wikipedia has a good intro. Basically, the benefits of Activity Theory is it combines all system levels into one model of change - from individual through to policy. And I like that.
Greg, Entwistle and Beech have a new paper which considers how AT can be applied usefully in healthcare.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Feb;74(3):305-12. Epub 2011 Mar 1.
Addressing complex healthcare problems in diverse settings: Insights from activity theory.
This is their abstract: "In the UK, approaches to policy implementation, service improvement and quality assurance treat policy, management and clinical care as separate, hierarchical domains. They are often based on the central knowledge transfer (KT) theory idea that best practice solutions to complex problems can be identified and 'rolled out' across organisations. When the designated 'best practice' is not implemented, this is interpreted as local - particularly management - failure. Remedial actions include reiterating policy aims and tightening performance management of solution implementation, frequently to no avail. We propose activity theory (AT) as an alternative approach to identifying and understanding the challenges of addressing complex healthcare problems across diverse settings. AT challenges the KT conceptual separations between levels of policy, management and clinical care. It does not regard knowledge and practice as separable, and does not understand them in the commodified way that has typified some versions of KT theory. Instead, AT focuses on "objects of activity" which can be contested. It sees new practice as emerging from contradiction and understands knowledge and practice as fundamentally entwined, not separate. From an AT perspective, there can be no single best practice. The contributions of AT are that it enables us to understand the dynamics of knowledge-practice in activities rather than between levels. It shows how efforts to reduce variation from best practice may paradoxically remove a key source of practice improvement. After explaining the principles of AT we illustrate its explanatory potential through an ethnographic study of primary healthcare teams responding to a policy aim of reducing inappropriate hospital admissions of older people by the 'best practice' of rapid response teams."
Labels:
activity theory,
adoption,
culture,
healthcare,
large scale change,
model,
rollout,
spread good practice
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Staying motivated
Brendan Venter, coach of an English rubgy team, explained at conference I attended, how important it is to keep motivated, especially in difficult times. This sounds a bit trite but I was interested in the way he explained for a team that is losing, when you get together at half time, the pep talk is important., However, what really matters is the culture of the team that will support their ability to survive the difficulty and to work through it so they engineer some from of success.
Will healthcare systems all over the world going through significant change, I was left wondering how important past and current culture is - so often the word on the organisational street is "we must develop a new culture" - but it may be too late. It is the existing culture that will determine much of the success of tomorrow.
Brendan also mentioned that people on the team need to know what the purpose is of it all. They need to know this for themselves. It is not something that can be issued in a memo. What is it that keeps people coming back to work? Ultimately, he suggests, it is friendship. There is nothing else.
Will healthcare systems all over the world going through significant change, I was left wondering how important past and current culture is - so often the word on the organisational street is "we must develop a new culture" - but it may be too late. It is the existing culture that will determine much of the success of tomorrow.
Brendan also mentioned that people on the team need to know what the purpose is of it all. They need to know this for themselves. It is not something that can be issued in a memo. What is it that keeps people coming back to work? Ultimately, he suggests, it is friendship. There is nothing else.
Labels:
brendan venter,
culture,
healthcare,
organisation,
sarah fraser
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
