ArticleBMJ open2021
Using institutional entrepreneurship to understand the role of innovation teams in healthcare: a longitudinal qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving participation and engagement with a COVID-19 surveillance programme in an outpatient setting.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe draw on institutional theory to explore the roles and actions of innovation teams and how this influences their behaviour and capabilities as 'institutional entrepreneurs (IEs)', in particular the extent to which they are both 'willing' and 'able' to facilitate transformational change in healthcare through service redesign.
designA longitudinal qualitative study that applied a 'researcher in residence' as an ethnographic approach.
settingThe development and implementation of two innovation projects within a single public hospital setting in an Australian state jurisdiction.
participantsTwo innovation teams, with members including senior research fellows, PhD scholars and front-line clinicians (19 participants and 47 interviews).
resultsDespite being from the same hospital, the two innovation teams occupied contrasting subject positions with one facilitating transformational improvements in service delivery, while the other sought more conservative improvements. Cast as 'IEs' we show how one team took steps to build legitimacy for their interventions enabling spread and scale in improvements and how, in the other case, failure to build legitimacy resulted in unintended consequences which undermined the sustainability of the improvements achieved.
conclusionsAdopting an institutional approach provided insight into the 'willingness' and 'ability' to facilitate transformational change in healthcare through service redesign. The manner in which innovation teams operate from different subject positions influences the structural and normative legitimacy afforded to their activities. Specifically, we observed that those with the most power (organisational or professional) to bring about transformational change can be the least willing to do so in ways which challenge current practice. Those most willing to challenge the status quo (more peripheral organisation members or professionals) can be least able to deliver transformation. Better understanding of these insights can inform healthcare leaders in supporting innovation team efforts, considering their subject position.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.