| Literature DB >> 29282772 |
Abstract
Most health care organizations engage in formal and informal planning, yet their improvement initiatives may remain disjointed and reactive. Research on organizational decision-making has found that the "discovery" approach (seek and assess multiple options before selecting one) outperforms "idea imposition" (identify 1 option, then gather information to [dis]confirm it), yet is observed relatively infrequently. Might this imply that discovery frequently collapses before fruition? This qualitative study sought to better understand the planning-action disjunction, as observed in 1 organization, by comparing its planning processes against the discovery approach. It focused on a Canadian regional health system's recurrent, unsuccessful attempts to improve patient flow. Through extensive document review supplemented by interviews with 62 managers, it identified all relevant regional plans/reports produced during a 15-year period and followed each recommendation forward in time to discover its fate. Each report presented a lengthy, unprioritized list of disparate recommendations, few of which progressed to full implementation. It appeared that decision-makers repeatedly embarked on a discovery approach, but rapidly allowed it to splinter into multiple idea-imposition approaches; numerous options were generated, but never evaluated against each other. Thus, the product of each planning process was not a coherent strategy but a list of disconnected actions.Entities:
Keywords: decision-making; patient flow; procedural rationality; qualitative research
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29282772 DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Plann Manage ISSN: 0749-6753