Nursing innovation: The joint effects of championship behaviors, project types, and initiation levels

Employee-Driven Innovation in Health Organizations: Insights From a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Employee-driven innovation (EDI) occurs when frontline actors in health organizations use their firsthand experience to spur new ideas to transform care. Despite its increasing prevalence in health organizations, the organizational conditions under which EDI is operationalized have received little scholarly attention.

METHODS

This scoping review identifies gaps and assembles existing knowledge on four questions: What is EDI in health organizations and which frontline actors are involved? What are the characteristics of the EDI process? What contextual factors enable or impede EDI? And what benefits does EDI bring to health organizations? We searched seven databases with keywords related to EDI in health organizations. After screening 1580 studies by title and abstract, we undertook full-text review of 453 articles, retaining 60 for analysis. We performed a descriptive and an inductive thematic analysis guided by the four questions.

RESULTS

Findings reveal an heterogeneous literature. Most articles are descriptive (n = 41). Few studies are conceptual and empirical (n = 15) and four are conference papers. EDI was often described as a participatory, learning innovation process involving frontline clinical and non-clinical staff and managers. Majority EDI were top-down, often driven by the organization's focus on participatory improvement and innovation and research-based initiatives. Five categories of methods is used in top-down EDI, two thirds of which includes a learning, a team and/or a digital component. Hybrid EDI often involves a team-based component. Bottom-up EDI emerged spontaneously from the work of frontline actors. Enablers, barriers, and benefits of EDI are seen at macro, organizational, team and individual levels; some benefits spread to other health organizations and health systems.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides a comprehensive understanding of the organizational conditions under which EDI is operationalized. It offers insights for researchers, health organizations, and policy-makers about how and why frontline actors' involvement is crucial for the transformation of care.

The paradoxical effects of professional stereotypes on the quality of care by interprofessional teams: The contingent effects of team faultlines, team stereotypes, and championship behaviors

Background

Despite calls for interprofessional teamwork to ensure quality care in healthcare settings, interprofessional teams do not always perform effectively. There is evidence that professional stereotypes inhibit effective interprofessional teamwork, but they haven't been explored as a phenomenon that impacts team's performance and quality of care.

Objectives

To focus on professional stereotypes emerging in interprofessional teams and examine the contingency effects of interprofessional team's faultlines, professional stereotypes, and leader's championship behaviors on team's quality of care.

Methods

A cross-sectional nested sample of 59 interprofessional teams and 284 professionals, working in geriatric long-term-care facilities in Israel. Additionally, five to seven of the residents of each facility were randomly sampled to obtain the outcome variable. Data collection employed a multisource (interprofessional team members), multimethod (validated questionnaires and data from residents' health records) strategy.

Results

The results indicated that faultlines are not directly harmful to team's quality of care; instead, they are likely to impact quality of care only when team stereotypes emerge. Furthermore, whereas teams typified by high professional stereotypes require person-oriented championship leadership, for teams typified by low team stereotypes, championship leadership harms the quality of care they provide.

Conclusion

These findings have implications for handling interprofessional teams. Practically, leaders must be well-educated to better analyze team members' needs and maintain the appropriate leadership style.

Trust and Nursing: Delivering Effective Change Management and Driving a Culture of Innovation

Trust is foundational for all interpersonal communication and activities in an increasingly networked and interdependent world. Trust is also essential to the effective delivery of health care and for building collegial environments rich in innovation and readily adaptable to change. As the world's most trusted profession and vested peer collaborators across interprofessional health care teams, nurses are uniquely qualified to shepherd change and foster an innovation mindset across organizations and systems. Innovation requires creative teams that are appropriately resourced and supported, and team-based innovation requires time, space, and safety for groups to realize their full potential and maximize contributions. Appropriate staffing, resourcing, internal engagement, and external partnerships are essential to successfully conceive, launch, sustain, and deliver change initiatives that successfully challenge the status quo. Diverse teams are vital to enhancing the performance, effectiveness, and delivery of change and innovation. Effective change management and innovation practices require courage and imagination, skills that nurses have long possessed. Nurses are uniquely equipped to champion human-centered design through all phases of innovation while bringing knowledge of patients and communities to bear in ways that deliver innovation, are respectful of challenges, and mindful of opportunities to strengthen individuals and communities.

Nurse champions as street-level bureaucrats: Factors which facilitate innovation, policy making, and reconstruction

Background

Nurse champions are front-line practitioners who implement innovation and reconstruct policy.

Purpose

To understand through a network theory lens the factors that facilitate nurse champions’ engagement with radical projects, representing their actions as street-level bureaucrats (SLBs).

Materials and methods

A personal-network survey was employed. Ninety-one nurse champions from three tertiary medical centers in Israel participated.

Findings

Given high network density, high levels of advice play a bigger role in achieving high radicalness compared with lower levels advice. High network density is also related to higher radicalness when networks have high role diversity.

Discussion

Using an SLB framework, the findings suggest that nurse champions best promote adoption of innovation and offer radical changes in their organizations through professional advice given by colleagues in their field network. Healthcare organizations should establish the structure and promote the development of dense and heterogeneous professional networks to realize organizations’ goals and nurses’ responsibility to their professional employees, patients, and society.

A blueprint for nursing innovation centers

Background

The interest in and demand for healthcare innovation has heightened amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Organizations are challenged to balance the goals of daily operations with innovation to stay relevant and compete in the marketplace. Innovation is critical for not only the success and sustainability of organizations, but the well-being of the faculty, staff, and clients they serve.

Purpose

In this article, we present an overview of several Nursing Innovation Centers in the United States as well as examples of colleges without formal innovation centers but who are addressing innovation in their programs.

Methods

We examined the subjective experience of nursing innovation in seven colleges of nursing using semi-structured intervieweds and thematic analysis.

FIndings

We discuss four themes for creating an innovation center or innovation focus and six themes important for sustainability and impact. In addition, we provide a working model for these themes and provide lessons learned along with trends and recommendations for the future.

Discussion

This information provides guidance and a framework for academic and practice organizations aspiring to create opportunities for innovation to flourish in their institutions. We also encourage leadership to critically evaluate and address biases in faculty hiring, research evaluation, publication practices, educational opportunities and mentoring to overcome the diversity innovation paradox.

The Use of a Palliative Care Screening Tool to Improve Referrals to Palliative Care Services in Community-Based Hospitals: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Despite efforts to improve access to palliative care services, a significant number of patients still have unmet needs throughout their continuum of care. As such, this project was conducted to increase recognition of patients who could benefit from palliative care, increase referrals, and connect regional sites. This study utilized Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles through a quality improvement approach to develop and test the Palliative Care Screening Tool and aimed to screen 100% of patients within 24 hours who were admitted to selected units by February 2017. The intervention was implemented in 3 different units, each within community hospitals. Patients 18 years or older were screened if they were admitted to one of the selected units for the project, regardless of their diagnosis, age, or comorbidities. The percentage of newly admitted patients who were screened and the total number of palliative care consults were assessed as outcome measures. The tool was met with varying compliance among the 3 sites. However, there was an overall increase in consults across all hospital sites, and an increase in the proportion of noncancer patients was demonstrated. Although the aim was not reached, the tool helped to create a shift in the demographic of patients identified as palliative.