BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have explored why some teaching hospitals and health systems appear to offer a more fertile environment for innovation and improvement in the learning environment. As a consequence, little is known about the role of organizational attributes and culture in fostering innovation and improvements in settings where residents learn and participate in care, though these have been studied extensively in the general literature on organizations. AIMS: The goals of our study entailed (1) gathering ground-level observations on processes and common attributes; (2) disseminating this information for adoption and adaptation; and (3) exploring whether the current accreditation model may present barriers to institution- and program-level innovation. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 4 institutions, successful in innovation and improvement in their learning environment, and sought to replicate the findings with a second group of 5 institutions. RESULTS: THREE THEMES EMERGED FROM THE INTERVIEWS AND SITE VISITS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE ALPHA PHASE: (1) a structure and culture that promote integration and inclusion; (2) a recognition of the value of resident education to the institution; and (3) a learning organization rooted in the extensive use of data and ongoing change, improvement, and innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the concepts identified in our small sample of "innovative" institutions could be relatively easily adopted or adapted by others that seek to enhance innovation and improvement in the learning environment. In contrast, the structural factors that characterized 3 of the 4 alpha participants, particularly the organization and compensation of faculty, may not be generalizable to many other institutions.
BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have explored why some teaching hospitals and health systems appear to offer a more fertile environment for innovation and improvement in the learning environment. As a consequence, little is known about the role of organizational attributes and culture in fostering innovation and improvements in settings where residents learn and participate in care, though these have been studied extensively in the general literature on organizations. AIMS: The goals of our study entailed (1) gathering ground-level observations on processes and common attributes; (2) disseminating this information for adoption and adaptation; and (3) exploring whether the current accreditation model may present barriers to institution- and program-level innovation. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 4 institutions, successful in innovation and improvement in their learning environment, and sought to replicate the findings with a second group of 5 institutions. RESULTS: THREE THEMES EMERGED FROM THE INTERVIEWS AND SITE VISITS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE ALPHA PHASE: (1) a structure and culture that promote integration and inclusion; (2) a recognition of the value of resident education to the institution; and (3) a learning organization rooted in the extensive use of data and ongoing change, improvement, and innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the concepts identified in our small sample of "innovative" institutions could be relatively easily adopted or adapted by others that seek to enhance innovation and improvement in the learning environment. In contrast, the structural factors that characterized 3 of the 4 alpha participants, particularly the organization and compensation of faculty, may not be generalizable to many other institutions.
Authors: S M Shortell; R H Jones; A W Rademaker; R R Gillies; D S Dranove; E F Hughes; P P Budetti; K S Reynolds; C F Huang Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lea R Ayers; Suzanne C Beyea; Marjorie M Godfrey; Doreen C Harper; Eugene C Nelson; Paul B Batalden Journal: Qual Manag Health Care Date: 2005 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 0.926
Authors: Timothy S Lesar; Ernest R Anderson; John Fields; Deborah Saine; Jill Gregoire; Susan Fraser; Maureen Parkin; Arnold Mattis Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2007-02
Authors: Lawrence Casalino; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell; Julie A Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; James C Robinson; Thomas Rundall; Nancy Oswald; Helen Schauffler; Margaret C Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003 Jan 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marshall H Chin; Melinda L Drum; Myriam Guillen; Ann Rimington; Jessica R Levie; Anne C Kirchhoff; Michael T Quinn; Cynthia T Schaefer Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983