R Ahmad1, Y Kyratsis, A Holmes. 1. National Centre for Infection Prevention and Management, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, UK. raheelah.ahmad@imperial.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health systems need efficient and effective innovation decisions to provide maximum benefit to patients, particularly in a climate of financial constraints. Although evidence-based innovations exist for helping to address healthcare-associated infections, the uptake and implementation of these is highly variable and in some cases very slow. AIM: To investigate innovation adoption decisions and implementation processes from an organizational perspective, focusing on the implications of stakeholder involvement during the innovation process. METHODS: Thirty-eight technology adoption decisions and implementation processes were examined through 121 qualitative interviews in 12 National Health Service healthcare organizations across England. FINDINGS: Stakeholder involvement varied across organizations with decisions highly exclusive to the infection prevention and control (IPC) team, to highly inclusive of wider organizational members. The context, including organizational culture, previous experience, and logistical factors influenced the level of stakeholder engagement. The timing of stakeholder involvement in the process impacted on: (i) the range of innovations considered; (ii) the technologies selected, and (iii) the success of technology implementation. Cases of non-adoption, discontinued adoption, and of successful implementation are presented to share learning. The potential benefits of stakeholder involvement for 'successful' innovation adoption are presented including a goal-oriented framework for involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholder involvement can lead to innovation adoption and implementation compatible with structural and cultural contexts, particularly when involvement crosses the phases of initiation, decision-making and implementation. Involving members of the wider healthcare organization can raise the profile of IPC and reinforce efforts to make IPC everybody's business.
BACKGROUND: Health systems need efficient and effective innovation decisions to provide maximum benefit to patients, particularly in a climate of financial constraints. Although evidence-based innovations exist for helping to address healthcare-associated infections, the uptake and implementation of these is highly variable and in some cases very slow. AIM: To investigate innovation adoption decisions and implementation processes from an organizational perspective, focusing on the implications of stakeholder involvement during the innovation process. METHODS: Thirty-eight technology adoption decisions and implementation processes were examined through 121 qualitative interviews in 12 National Health Service healthcare organizations across England. FINDINGS: Stakeholder involvement varied across organizations with decisions highly exclusive to the infection prevention and control (IPC) team, to highly inclusive of wider organizational members. The context, including organizational culture, previous experience, and logistical factors influenced the level of stakeholder engagement. The timing of stakeholder involvement in the process impacted on: (i) the range of innovations considered; (ii) the technologies selected, and (iii) the success of technology implementation. Cases of non-adoption, discontinued adoption, and of successful implementation are presented to share learning. The potential benefits of stakeholder involvement for 'successful' innovation adoption are presented including a goal-oriented framework for involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholder involvement can lead to innovation adoption and implementation compatible with structural and cultural contexts, particularly when involvement crosses the phases of initiation, decision-making and implementation. Involving members of the wider healthcare organization can raise the profile of IPC and reinforce efforts to make IPC everybody's business.
Authors: Sonja Likumahuwa-Ackman; Heather Angier; Aleksandra Sumic; Rose L Harding; Erika K Cottrell; Deborah J Cohen; Christine A Nelson; Timothy E Burdick; Lorraine S Wallace; Charles Gallia; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Alison B Hamilton; Julian Brunner; Cindy Cain; Emmeline Chuang; Tana M Luger; Ismelda Canelo; Lisa Rubenstein; Elizabeth M Yano Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: E Charani; E Castro-Sanchez; N Sevdalis; Y Kyratsis; L Drumright; N Shah; A Holmes Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Jobke Wentzel; Lex van Velsen; Maarten van Limburg; Nienke de Jong; Joyce Karreman; Ron Hendrix; Julia Elisabeth Wilhelmina Cornelia van Gemert-Pijnen Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Nicholas A Rattray; Andrew Khaw; Mackenzie McGrath; Teresa M Damush; Edward J Miech; Adam Lenet; Stephanie Stahl; Jared Ferguson; Jennifer Myers; David Guenther; Barbara J Homoya; Dawn M Bravata Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: J Keizer; N Beerlage-De Jong; N Al Naiemi; J E W C van Gemert-Pijnen Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.887