Background: Quality Improvement (QI) is the key for every healthcare organization. QI programs may help healthcare professionals to develop the needed skills for interprofessional collaboration through interprofessional education. Furthermore, the role of diversity in QI teams is not yet fully understood. This evaluation study aimed to obtain in-depth insights into the expectations and experiences of different stakeholders of a hospital-wide interprofessional QI program. Methods: This qualitative study builds upon 20 semi-structured interviews with participants and two focus groups with the coaches and program advisory board members of this QI program. Data were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes emerged from the analysis: “interprofessional education”, “networking” and “motivation: presence with pitfalls”. Working within interprofessional project groups was valuable, because participants with different experiences and skills helped to move the QI project forward. It was simultaneously challenging because IPE was new and revealed problems with hierarchy, communication and planning. Networking was also deemed valuable, but a shared space to keep in contact after finalizing the program was missing. The participants were highly motivated to finish their QI project, but they underestimated the challenges. Conclusions: A hospital-wide QI program must explicitly pay attention to interprofessional collaboration and networking. Leaders of the QI program must cherish the motivation of the participants and make sure that the QI projects are realistic.
Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the nurses' experiences with the Nursing Crisis Meetings and to identify nurses' needs regarding the future governance structure. Design: Qualitative study. Methods: Two focus groups were conducted in February 2022 with participants of the Nursing Crisis Meetings (N= 15). We used thematic analysis to describe themes. Results: We identified five themes: opportunity to speak up, call for nursing leadership, call for control over practice and autonomy, development of a governance infrastructure and development of the professional nurse role. Conclusion: Nurses experienced the Nursing Crisis Meetings to be a positive and empowering infrastructure, which facilitates the unique opportunity to speak up and share experiences and concerns. This new infrastructure is a promising strategy to engage nurses during a pandemic and to build on a professional governance structure. Impact: This paper highlights the need for nurses to speak up and be engaged during the COVID-19 pandemic and gives a practical example of how to put this infrastructure into practice.
LINK
Abstract Background. Fever in children is common and mostly caused by self-limiting infections. However, parents of febrile children often consult in general practice, in particular during out-of-hours care. To improve management, it is important to understand experiences of GPs managing these consultations. Objective. To describe GPs’ experiences regarding management of childhood fever during out-ofhours care. Methods. A descriptive qualitative study using purposeful sampling, five focus group discussions were held among 37 GPs. Analysis was based on constant comparative technique using open and axial coding. Results. Main categories were: (i) Workload and general experience; (ii) GPs’ perceptions of determinants of consulting behaviour; (iii) Parents’ expectations from the GP’s point of view; (iv) Antibiotic prescribing decisions; (v) Uncertainty of GPs versus uncertainty of parents and (vi) Information exchange during the consultation. GPs felt management of childhood fever imposes a considerable workload. They perceived a mismatch between parental concerns and their own impression of illness severity, which combined with time–pressure can lead to frustration. Diagnostic uncertainty is driven by low incidences of serious infections and dealing with parental demand for antibiotics is still challenging. Conclusion. Children with a fever account for a high workload during out-of-hours GP care which provides a diagnostic challenge due to the low incidence of serious illnesses and lacking longterm relationship. This can lead to frustration and drives antibiotics prescription rates. Improving information exchange during consultations and in the general public to young parents, could help provide a safety net thereby enhancing self-management, reducing consultations and workload, and subsequent antibiotic prescriptions.
The HAS professorship Future Food Systems is performing applied research with students and external partners to transform our food system towards a more sustainable state. In this research it is not only a question of what is needed to achieve this, but also how and with whom. The governance of our food system needs rethinking to get the transformative momentum going in a democratic and constructive manner. Building on the professorship’s research agenda and involvement in the transdisciplinary NWA research project, the postdoc will explore collective ownership and inclusive participation as two key governance concepts for food system transformation. This will be done in a participatory manner, by learning from and with innovative bottom-up initiatives and practitioners from the field. By doing so, the postdoc will gain valuable practical insights that can aid to new approaches and (policy) interventions which foster a sustainable and just food system in the Netherlands and beyond. A strong connection between research and education is created via the active research involvement of students from different study programs, supervised by the postdoc (Dr. B. van Helvoirt). The acquired knowledge is embedded in education by the postdoc by incorporating it into HAS study program curricula and courses. In addition, it will contribute to the further professional development of qualitative research skills among HAS students and staff. Through scientific, policy and popular publications, participation in (inter)national conferences and meetings with experts and practitioners, the exposure and network of the postdoc and HAS in the field of food systems and governance will be expanded. This will allow for the setting up of a continuous research effort on this topic within the professorship via follow-up research with knowledge institutes, civic society groups and partners from the professional field.
Effectiveness of Supported Education for students with mental health problems, an experimental study.The onset of mental health problems generally occurs between the ages of 16 and 23 – the years in which young people follow postsecondary education, which is a major channel in ourso ciety to prepare for a career and enhance life goals. Several studies have shown that students with mental health problems have a higher chance of early school leaving. Supported Education services have been developed to support students with mental health to remain at school. The current project aims to study the effect of an individually tailored Supported Education intervention on educational and mental health outcomes of students with mental health problems at a university of applied sciences and a community college. To that end, a mixed methods design will be used. This design combines quantitative research (Randomized Controlled Trial) with qualitative research (focus groups, monitoring, interviews). 100 students recruited from the two educational institutes will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
