ArticleBMC health services research2025
Analysis of the current status and future vision of innovation in a tertiary hospital in Catalonia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
- Innovating for Health: Measuring the Path of Global Innovation in Healthcare Systems.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInnovation in healthcare is a complex process involving the creation or modification of products, services, or processes, and their successful implementation in clinical settings. University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol (HUGTP) implemented a new innovation management model in 2018, to achieve greater impact. However, there is still a knowledge gap regarding how healthcare organizations understand and experience innovation activities. This exploratory study aims to analyze the current state and future vision of innovation at HUGTP, using the novel Innovation Map methodology to capture the perceptions of professionals engaged in innovation.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at HUGTP using the Innovation Map approach, which combines quantitative and qualitative data. Professionals with roles connected to innovation were recruited via email and intranet. Data were collected through an ad hoc-developed questionnaire and focus groups. Quantitative data were analyzed using Jamovi software (95% confidence interval,p≤0.05), and qualitative data were analyzed with ATLAS.ti to identify attributes and cluster emerging themes.
resultsA total of 152 participants completed the quantitative survey and 33 participated in focus groups. The results show a high level of awareness and positive perception of the Innovation Department's activities, particularly among professionals in high-responsibility roles. While the areas of work received strong overall ratings, some statistical differences between professional categories and departments highlight the need for tailored future strategies. Participants also recognized the significant impact of emerging technologies, although perceptions varied by group. Key improvement areas were identified, particularly regarding internal communication and better integration of innovation practices across all departments.
conclusionsThis study presents the first implementation of the Innovation Map, a novel mixed-methods tool to holistically assess innovation awareness, perceptions, and needs within a hospital. The findings provide a meaningful initial overview of the innovation landscape at HUGTP and underscore the importance of strategic, inclusive innovation management. These results offer a valuable starting point for future longitudinal and multicenter studies.
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.