Uit het vooronderzoekvan het project Duurzamelearning communities: Oogstenin de Greenportblijkt dat12 factorenhierbijvan belangrijk zijn. Deze succesfactoren staan centraal in de interactieve tool Seeds of Innovation. Ook komen uit het vooronderzoek, aangevuld met inzichten uit de literatuur en tips om de samenwerking door te ontwikkelen en meer gebruik te maken van de opbrengsten 12 succesfactoren met toelichting, belangrijkste bevindingen en tips voor ‘hoe nu verder’, Poster, Walk through, De app die learning communities helptde samenwerkingnaareenhogerplan te tillenen innovatieveopbrengstenoptimaalte benutten.
MULTIFILE
To promote workplace learning for staff as well as students, a partnership was formed between a residential care organisation for older people and several nursing faculties in the Netherlands. This partnership took the form of two care innovation units; wards where qualified staff, students and nurse teachers collaborate to integrate care, education, innovation and research. In this article, the care innovation units as learning environments are studied from a student perspective to deepen understandings concerning the conditions that facilitate learning. A secondary analysis of focus groups, held with 216 nursing students over a period of five years, revealed that students are satisfied about the units' learning potential, which is formed by various interrelated and self-reinforcing affordances: co-constructive learning and working, challenging situations and activities, being given responsibility and independence, and supportive and recognisable learning structures. Time constraints had a negative impact on the units' learning potential. It is concluded that the learning potential of the care innovation units was enhanced by realising certain conditions, like learning structures and activities. The learning potential was also influenced, however, by the non-controllable and dynamic interaction of various elements within the context. Suggestions for practice and further research are offered.
LINK
A B S T R A C T Background: Approximately 4 years ago a new concept of learning in practice called the ‘Learning and Innovation Network (LIN)’ was introduced in The Netherlands. To develop a definition of the LIN, to identify working elements of the LIN in order to provide a preliminary framework for evaluation, a concept analysis was conducted. Method: For the concept analysis, we adopted the method of Walker and Avant. We searched for relevant publications in the EBSCO host portal, grey literature and snowball searches, as well as Google internet searches and dictionary consults. Results: Compared to other forms of workplace learning, the LIN is in the centre of the research, education and practice triangle. The most important attributes of the LIN are social learning, innovation, daily practice, reflection and co-production. Often described antecedents are societal developments, such as increasing complexity of work, and time and space to learn. Frequently identified consequences are an attractive workplace, advancements of expertise of care professionals, innovations that endorse daily practice, improvement of quality of care and the integration of education and practice. Conclusions: Based on the results of the concept analysis, we describe the LIN as ‘a group of care professionals, students and an education representatives who come together in clinical practice and are all part of a learning and innovation community in nursing. They work together on practice-based projects in which they combine best practices, research evidence and client perspectives in order to innovate and improve quality of care and in which an integration of education, research and practice takes place’. We transferred the outcomes of the concept analysis to an input-throughput-output model that can be used as a preliminary framework for future research.
DOCUMENT
The promotor was Prof. Erik Jan Hultink and copromotors Dr Ellis van den Hende en Dr R. van der Lugt. The title of this dissertation is Armchair travelling the innovation journey. ‘Armchair travelling’ is an expression for travelling to another place, in the comfort of one’s own place. ‘The innovation journey’ is the metaphor Van de Ven and colleagues (1999) have used for travelling the uncharted river of innovation, the highly unpredictable and uncontrollable process of innovation. This research study began with a brief remark from an innovation project leader who sighed after a long and rough journey: ‘had I known this ahead of time…’. From wondering ‘what could he have known ahead of time?’ the immediate question arose: how do such innovation journeys develop? How do other innovation project leaders lead the innovation journey? And could I find examples of studies about these experiences from an innovation project leader’s perspective that could have helped the sighing innovation project leader to have known at least some of the challenges ahead of time? This dissertation is the result of that quest, as we do know relatively little how this process of the innovation project leader unfolds over time. The aim of this study is to increase our understanding of how innovation project leaders lead their innovation journeys over time, and to capture those experiences that could be a source for others to learn from and to be better prepared. This research project takes a process approach. Such an approach is different from a variance study. Process thinking takes into account how and why things – people, organizations, strategies, environments – change, act and evolve over time, expressed by Andrew Pettigrew (1992, p.10) as catching “reality in flight”.
MULTIFILE
This report presents research on success factors of learning communities with a case study of the Innovation Lab Hanze International Business Office (further – Innovation Lab HIBO) at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, the Netherlands. The research project is a part of the broader research programme on innovation of education and the success factors of learning communities carried on by a number of researchers at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen (further – Hanze University AS).In answering the main research question on success factors of learning communities and, specifically, the Innovation Lab HIBO, two sub-questions were formulated: the first deals with school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO, whereas the second explores what are the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs at Hanze University AS. The research focus is on formalised expectations about the goals and outcomes of living labs, as attaining the established goals and outcomes would testimony a successful activity of a living lab. The factors that facilitate or determine whether the goalsand outcomes of living labs are achieved are therefore the success factors.The analysis of both school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO and the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs reveals a number of success factors, conditions, and preconditions. As these do not coincide, it is argued that finding the right balance between local, school level, expectations and the institutional goals is crucial for the successful performance of living labs. Another important factor for successful performance of the living lab and, specifically the Innovation Lab HIBO, is development of a learning community. This process would require strengthening of an open organisationalculture and facilitation of exchange of ideas and learning process.The research project was carried on in the period from February 1, 2020, till August 30, 2020. From September 2020 the follow up research is planned into operationalization of success factors, definition of performance criteria, performance evaluation, development of suggestions for improvement of performance, and development of a blueprint for the establishment of innovation labs.
DOCUMENT
The model of the Best Practice Unit (BPU) is a specific form of practice based research. It is a variation of the Community of Practice (CoP) as developed by Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) with the specific aim to innovate a professional practice by combining learning, development and research. We have applied the model over the past 10 years in the domain of care and social welfare in the Netherlands. Characteristics of the model are: the interaction between individual and collective learning processes, the development of (new or better) working methods, and the implementation of these methods in daily practice. Multiple knowledge sources are being used: experiential knowledge, professional knowledge and scientific knowledge. Research is serving diverse purposes: articulating tacit knowledge, documenting the learning and innovation process, systematically describing the revealed or developed ways of working, and evaluating the efficacy of new methods. An analysis of 10 different research projects shows that the BPU is an effective model.
DOCUMENT
eHealth education should be integrated into vocational training and continuous professional development programmes. In this opinion article, we aim to support organisers of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and teachers delivering medical vocational training by providing recommendations for eHealth education. First, we describe what is required to help primary care professionals and trainees learn about eHealth. Second, we elaborate on how eHealth education might be provided
DOCUMENT
Digital innovation in education – as in any other sector – is not only about developing and implementing novel ideas, but also about having these ideas effectively used as well as widely accepted and adopted, so that many students can benefit from innovations improving education. Effectiveness, transferability and scalability cannot be added afterwards; it must be integrated from the start in the design, development and implementation processes, as is proposed in the movement towards evidence-informed practice (EIP). The impact an educational innovation has on the values of various stakeholders is often overlooked. Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is an approach to integrate values in technological design. In this paper we discuss how EIP and VSD may be combined into an integrated approach to digital innovation in education, which we call value-informed innovation. This approach not only considers educational effectiveness, but also incorporates the innovation’s impact on human values, its scalability and transferability to other contexts. We illustrate the integrated approach with an example case of an educational innovation involving digital peer feedback.
DOCUMENT
Through a qualitative examination, the moral evaluations of Dutch care professionals regarding healthcare robots for eldercare in terms of biomedical ethical principles and non-utility are researched. Results showed that care professionals primarily focused on maleficence (potential harm done by the robot), deriving from diminishing human contact. Worries about potential maleficence were more pronounced from intermediate compared to higher educated professionals. However, both groups deemed companion robots more beneficiary than devices that monitor and assist, which were deemed potentially harmful physically and psychologically. The perceived utility was not related to the professionals' moral stances, countering prevailing views. Increasing patient's autonomy by applying robot care was not part of the discussion and justice as a moral evaluation was rarely mentioned. Awareness of the care professionals' point of view is important for policymakers, educational institutes, and for developers of healthcare robots to tailor designs to the wants of older adults along with the needs of the much-undervalued eldercare professionals.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers’ views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers. Results: Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs’ accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types. Conclusions: The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs. Implications for cancer survivors: Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.
DOCUMENT
