Organizational Culture and Change

Collection of articles on Organizational Culture and Change is available here.
 
How Practice Facilitation Strategies Differ by Practice Context.
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

A. M. Nguyen, A. Cuthel, D. K. Padgett, et al.
J Gen Intern Med 2020 Mar;35(3):824-831
Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy used to build practice capacity and support practice changes to improve health care outcomes. Yet, few studies have investigated how practice facilitation strategies are tailored to different primary care contexts. OBJECTIVE: To identify contextual factors that drive facilitators’ strategies to meet practice improvement goals, and how these strategies are tailored to practice context. DESIGN: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews analyzed using inductive (open coding) and deductive (thematic) approaches. This study was conducted as part of a larger study, HealthyHearts New York City, which evaluated the impact of practice facilitation on adoption of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines. PARTICIPANTS: 15 facilitators working in two practice contexts: small independent practices (SIPs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). MAIN MEASURES: Strategies facilitators use to support and promote practice changes and contextual factors that impact this approach. KEY RESULTS: Contextual factors were described similarly across settings and included the policy environment, patient needs, site characteristics, leadership engagement, and competing priorities. We identified four facilitation strategies used to tailor to contextual factors and support practice change: (a) remain flexible to align with practice and organizational priorities; (b) build relationships; (c) provide value through information technology expertise; and (d) build capacity and create efficiencies. Facilitators in SIPs and FQHCs described using the same strategies, often in combination, but tailored to their specific contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant infrastructure and resource differences between SIPs and FQHCs, the contextual factors that influenced the facilitator’s change process and the strategies used to address those factors were remarkably similar. The findings emphasize that facilitators require multidisciplinary skills to support sustainable practice improvement in the context of varying complex health care delivery settings.

Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review.
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

J. Scarlett, B. C. Forsberg, O. Biermann, T. Kuchenmüller and Z. El-Khatib.
Health Res Policy Syst 2020 Aug 24;18(1):93-020-00607-8
Knowledge translation (KT) is currently endorsed by global health policy actors as a means to improve outcomes by institutionalising evidence-informed policy-making. Organisational knowledge brokers, comprised of researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders, are increasingly being used to undertake and promote KT at all levels of health policy-making, though few resources exist to guide the evaluation of these efforts. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified, synthesised and assessed indicators that have been used to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities in a health policy context in order to inform the evaluation of organisational knowledge brokers. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. This included the search of Medline, Global Health and the WHO Library databases for studies regarding the evaluation of KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities between health research and policy, published in English from 2005 to 2016. Data on study characteristics, outputs and outcomes measured, related indicators, mode of verification, duration and/or frequency of collection, indicator methods, KT model, and targeted capacity level were extracted and charted for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1073 unique articles were obtained and 176 articles were qualified to be screened in full-text; 32 articles were included in the analysis. Of a total 213 indicators extracted, we identified 174 (174/213; 81.7%) indicators to evaluate the KT infrastructure and capacity-building that have been developed using methods beyond expert opinion. Four validated instruments were identified. The 174 indicators are presented in 8 domains based on an adaptation of the domains of the Lavis et al. framework of linking research to action – general climate, production of research, push efforts, pull efforts, exchange efforts, integrated efforts, evaluation and capacity-building. CONCLUSION: This review presents a total of 174 method-based indicators to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building. The presented indicators can be used or adapted globally by organisational knowledge brokers and other stakeholders in their monitoring and evaluation work.

Evaluation of the Nursing Culture Assessment Tool for Pressure Injury Prevention: A Mixed-methods Study.
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

T. L. Yap, R. Hunt, S. M. Kennerly and J. K. Mummert.
Wound Manag Prev 2019 Dec;65(12):32-40
The nursing culture in long-term care (LTC) settings may affect quality measures such as pressure injury (PrI) rates. PURPOSE: The study was conducted to evaluate the relevance of an LTC facility’s nursing culture to both their quality measures and their staff’s perceptions of care in the context of PrI prevention. METHODS: Directors of Nursing (DONs) in 4 purposively selected Medicare/Medicaid-certified skilled nursing facilities were invited by phone, agreed to participate in the 5-day project, and completed an initial 7-item, facility-related survey. Their staff completed the Nursing Culture Assessment Tool (NCAT), a pen-and-paper instrument that comprises 19 items regarding 6 principal dimensions of nursing culture (behaviors, expectations, teamwork, communication, satisfaction, and professional commitment) and participated in focus groups to discuss the NCAT and its findings using standardized probes of the perception of survey salience in relation to PrI prevention practices. Staff, including registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants employed either part- or full-time at each facility, were eligible for study participation over a 5-day period. All data collection and analyses were conducted by the authors. Facility-related data were descriptive only. Analyses of variance were used to test differences in standardized NCAT scores by facility, and focus group transcripts were coded and subjected to structured thematic content analysis. RESULTS: One hundred, nine (109) people completed the NCAT, and 47 participated in focus groups. NCAT scores varied significantly by facility (P value range .001-.027). Staff comments about their respective facility’s results focused primarily on communication and teamwork and included both agreement or disagreement with the facility’s high or low scores in the context of PrI prevention, as well as suggestions for instrument administration. CONCLUSION: Examination of nursing culture using the NCAT can provide new and targeted perspectives on how frontline workers perceive barriers and facilitators to delivery of PrI prevention in LTC. To support the evidence base regarding their values and beliefs, future research on effective workplace change in LTC settings will require nuanced assessment of the meaning and impact of the nursing culture on worker performance.