Embedding the examination of multilevel factors in an organization field context

Achieving a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the U.S. post-COVID era: What is the role of management?

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine already had declared the state of U.S. cancer care as "a delivery system in crisis." Beginning in early 2020, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically revealed the fragile nature of the U.S. health system. As a microcosm of that larger health system, cancer care can provide us with opportunities for innovative thinking and new solutions. This paper describes a series of public and private-sector cancer care initiatives that are the building blocks for a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the post-COVID era. Achieving these objectives requires significant managerial policy decisions, some risk taking, and the development of organizational strategies that involve collaboration within the managerial and clinical leadership. Such strategies should reflect adaptability to navigate the complex and changing science, policy and financing environment, while retaining the central values of patient-centered care. As suggested by Edward Deming, an early pioneer in quality-improvement initiatives, the problems are with the system, and the system belongs to management. Though future challenges are undefined and likely to be significant, the foundational elements of a multilevel, evidence-based approach for improving cancer care are established and able to be built upon and will offer application in the post-COVID era.

The emergence and adoption of digitalization in the logistics and supply chain industry: an institutional perspective

Purpose

Despite increasing interest in digital services and products, the emergence of digitalization in the logistics and supply chain (L&SC) industry has received little attention, in particular from organizational theorists. In response, taking an institutionalist view, the authors argue that the emergence and adoption of digitalization is a socially constructed phenomenon.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper shows how actor-level frameshifts contribute to an emergence of an overarching “digitalization logic” in the L&SC industry at the field level. Building on a longitudinal analysis of field actors' frames and logics, the authors track the development of digitalization over the last 60 years in the L&SC sector.

Findings

The authors classify specific time periods by key field-configuring events, describe the relevant frameshifts in each time period and present a process that explains how and why digitalization has emerged, been adopted and manifested itself in the L&SC industry.

Originality/value

The findings of the study provide insights about the evolution of a digitalization logic and thus advance the institutional view on digitalization in the L&SC industry.

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences

BACKGROUND

The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.

MAIN ARGUMENT

To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.

Multilevel intervention research: lessons learned and pathways forward

This summary reflects on this monograph regarding multilevel intervention (MLI) research to 1) assess its added value; 2) discuss what has been learned to date about its challenges in cancer care delivery; and 3) identify specific ways to improve its scientific soundness, feasibility, policy relevance, and research agenda. The 12 submitted chapters, and discussion of them at the March 2011 multilevel meeting, were reviewed and discussed among the authors to elicit key findings and results addressing the questions raised at the outset of this effort. MLI research is underrepresented as an explicit focus in the cancer literature but may improve implementation of studies of cancer care delivery if they assess contextual, organizational, and environmental factors important to understanding behavioral and/or system-level interventions. The field lacks a single unifying theory, although several psychological or biological theories are useful, and an ecological model helps conceptualize and communicate interventions. MLI research designs are often complex, involving nonlinear and nonhierarchical relationships that may not be optimally studied in randomized designs. Simulation modeling and pilot studies may be necessary to evaluate MLI interventions. Measurement and evaluation of team and organizational interventions are especially needed in cancer care, as are attention to the context of health-care reform, eHealth technology, and genomics-based medicine. Future progress in MLI research requires greater attention to developing and supporting relevant metrics of level effects and interactions and evaluating MLI interventions. MLI research holds an unrealized promise for understanding how to improve cancer care delivery.