Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30082347›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Examining 'institutional entrepreneurship' in healthcare redesign and improvement through comparative case study research: a study protocol.

Angela Melder, Prue Burns, Ian Mcloughlin, Helena Teede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Angela MelderMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Univeristy, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Prue BurnsMonash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ian McloughlinDepartment of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Helena TeedeEndocrinology and Diabetes Units, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealthcare service redesign and improvement has become an important activity that health system leaders and clinicians realise must be nurtured and mastered, if the capacity issues that constrain healthcare delivery are to be solved. However, little is known about the critical success factors that are essential for sustaining and scaling up improvement initiatives. This situation limits the impact of these initiatives and undermines the general standing of redesign and improvement activity within healthcare systems. The conduct of the doctoral research detailed in this study protocol will be nested within a broader parent study that seeks to address this problem by drawing on the theory of 'institutional entrepreneurship'. The doctoral research will apply this idea to understanding the capacities and capabilities required at the organisation level to bring about transformational change in healthcare services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The parent study is predominantly qualitative, is multilevel in nature and has been codesigned with five partner healthcare organisations. The focus is a sector-wide attempt in an Australian state jurisdiction to transfer new redesign and improvement knowledge into the public healthcare system. The doctoral research will focus on the implementation of the sector-wide approach in one healthcare service in the jurisdiction. This research involves interviews with project team members and stakeholders involved in two improvement initiatives undertaken by the health service. It will involve interviews with redesign and improvement leaders and senior managers responsible for the overall health service improvement approach. The methods will also include immersive fieldwork, interviews and focus groups. Appropriate methods for coding and thematic extraction will be applied to the qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the health service and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee. Dissemination will be facilitated via academic publication, industry reports and workshops and dissemination events as part of the broader project.

Indexed as

Facility Design and ConstructionHealth FacilitiesAustraliaEntrepreneurshipHumansOrganizational Case StudiesResearch Designdiffusion of innovationentrepreneurshiphealth services researchknowledge translationorganizational innovationqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30082347
PMCPMC6078238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.