Area health services as learning organisations: the rural experience

The Learning Practice Inventory: diagnosing and developing Learning Practices in the UK

BACKGROUND AND SETTING

This paper outlines the development of a diagnostic tool to help Primary Care general practitioner (GP) Practices diagnose the extent to which they are developing effective techniques for collective learning and if their Practice culture supports innovation. This project is undertaken by the University of St Andrews and NHS Education for Scotland.

METHODS

Based on Learning Organization and Organizational Learning theory, and using a modified Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale, the Learning Practice Inventory (LPI) identifies attitudes, behaviours, processes, systems and organizational arrangements associated with being a Learning Practice. The LPI is a self-assessment, fixed-choice, survey-feedback tool that surveys all Practice members.

RESULTS

The survey-feedback tool empowers Practice members to view, assess and prioritize the developments they wish to make collectively to Practice life. The LPI assumes complexity and non-linearity in change processes, used longitudinally it tracks the impact of change on Practice life through time. Practitioners and Practices involved in its development give favourable feedback on the tool, and its potential usefulness.

DISCUSSION

This contributes to our wider understanding in three main ways: first, it applies the ideas of Learning Organizations and Organizational Learning to health care settings. Second, as a practical advance, the tool assumes complexity, non-linearity and systemic knock-on effects during change in Primary Care. Third, it offers practitioners who work together the opportunity to share knowledge and learning in practical ways helping them to change by themselves and for themselves and their patients.

Unlearning in health care

Learning in health care is essential if healthcare organisations are to tackle a challenging quality of care agenda. Yet while we know a reasonable amount about the nature of learning, how learning occurs, the forms it can take, and the routines that encourage it to happen within organisations, we know very little about the nature and processes of unlearning. We review the literature addressing issues pivotal to unlearning (what it is, why it is important, and why it is often neglected), and go further to explore the conditions under which unlearning is likely to be encouraged. There is a difference between routine unlearning (and subsequent re-learning) and deep unlearning--unlearning that requires a substantive break with previous modes of understanding, doing, and being. We argue that routine unlearning merely requires the establishment of new habits, whereas deep unlearning is a sudden, potentially painful, confrontation of the inadequacy in our substantive view of the world and our capacity to cope with that world competently.

Unlearning in health care

Learning in health care is essential if healthcare organisations are to tackle a challenging quality of care agenda. Yet while we know a reasonable amount about the nature of learning, how learning occurs, the forms it can take, and the routines that encourage it to happen within organisations, we know very little about the nature and processes of unlearning. We review the literature addressing issues pivotal to unlearning (what it is, why it is important, and why it is often neglected), and go further to explore the conditions under which unlearning is likely to be encouraged. There is a difference between routine unlearning (and subsequent re-learning) and deep unlearning--unlearning that requires a substantive break with previous modes of understanding, doing, and being. We argue that routine unlearning merely requires the establishment of new habits, whereas deep unlearning is a sudden, potentially painful, confrontation of the inadequacy in our substantive view of the world and our capacity to cope with that world competently.

Introducing the Learning Practice--I. The characteristics of Learning Organizations in Primary Care

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This paper is the first of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. Here we introduce the notion of the Learning Practice (LP) and outline the characteristics and nature of an LP, exploring cultural and structural factors in detail.

METHODS

Drawing upon both theoretical concepts and empirical research into LOs in health care settings, the format, focus and feasibility of an LP is explored.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of LPs include flatter team-based structures that prioritize learning and empowered change, involve staff and are open to suggestions and innovation. Potential benefits include: timely changes in service provision that are realistic, acceptable, sustainable, and owned at practitioner level; smoother interprofessional working; and fast flowing informal communication backed up by records of key decisions to facilitate permanent learning. Critical comment on potential pitfalls and practical difficulties highlights features of the present system that hinder development: tightly defined roles; political behaviours and individual-oriented support systems; plus the ongoing difficulties involved in tolerating errors (whilst people learn). This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in the area in three main ways. First, by locating Government's desires to create health systems capable of learning within the theoretical and empirical evidence on LOs. Second, it suggests what an LP could be like and how its culture and structures might benefit both staff and patients in addition to meeting externally driven reforms and health priorities. Third, it extends the application of LO concepts to the health care sector locating the principles in bottom-up change.

Shifting paradigms: from Flexner to competencies

Realizing medical education is on the brink of a major paradigm shift from structure- and process-based to competency-based education and measurement of outcomes, the authors reviewed the existing medical literature to provide practical insight into how to accomplish full implementation and evaluation of this new paradigm. They searched Medline and the Educational Resource Information Clearinghouse from the 1960s until the present, reviewed the titles and abstracts of the 469 articles the search produced, and chose 68 relevant articles for full review. The authors found that in the 1970s and 1980s much attention was given to the need for and the development of professional competencies for many medical disciplines. Little attention, however, was devoted to defining the benchmarks of specific competencies, how to attain them, or the evaluation of competence. Lack of evaluation strategies was likely one of the forces responsible for the three-decade lag between initiation of the movement and wide-spread adoption. Lessons learned from past experiences include the importance of strategic planning and faculty and learner buy-in for defining competencies. In addition, the benchmarks for defining competency and the thresholds for attaining competence must be clearly delineated. The development of appropriate assessment tools to measure competence remains the challenge of this decade, and educators must be responsible for studying the impact of this paradigm shift to determine whether its ultimate effect is the production of more competent physicians.