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
Background: On two Care Innovation Units in the Netherlands, staff, students and Lecturer Practitioners work intensively together to provide care, create a rich learning environment, and to foster innovation and research. In striving to advance the quality of care and to develop person centred cultures a preference is given to participative forms of research in which diverse experiences and different types of knowledge are valued. Aims and Objectives: The research described here had two overarching aims: the improvement of practice situations and the encouragement of the integration of work and learning. This article focuses on our actions and learning with respect to fostering participation during this project. Design and methods: Within the action research methodology used, participative work-forms and research methods were chosen. For example, a responsive approach to evaluation of practice, use of narratives and the stimulation and use of creativity to help in exploring and sharing feelings, values and different forms of knowledge. In this article we use Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation to frame our reflection on enabling participation within this project. Results Participation took various forms and vacillated throughout the project. In addition to particular facilitation strategies, four factors emerged as influential in enabling or inhibiting aspects of participation among stakeholders: individual motivations and interests, the make-up of and atmosphere within the group, and the time made available to engage in research activities. Conclusions Participation in research is both more complex and dynamic than Arnstein's typology suggests. Moving 'up' the ladder may not be appropriate as a goal in and of itself. Instead, meeting and responding to each other's situations, as stakeholders, seems a more appropriate focus. Taking responsibility, as facilitator, for certain research activities, can free other participants to focus on elements which interest them and from which they derive satisfaction.
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 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
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
Background: The transformation in global demography and the shortage of health care workers require innovation and efficiency in the field of health care. Digital technology can help improve the efficiency of health care. The Mercury Advance SMARTcare solution is an example of digital technology. The system is connected to a hybrid mattress and is able to detect patient movement, based on which the air pump either starts automatically or sends a notification to the app. Barriers to the adoption of the system are unknown, and it is unclear if the solution will be able to support health care workers in their work. Objective: This study aims to gain insight into health care workers’ expectations of factors that could either hamper or support the adoption of the Mercury Advance SMARTcare unit connected to a Mercury Advance mattress to help prevent patients from developing pressure injuries in hospitals and long-term care facilities. Methods: We conducted a generic qualitative study from February to December 2022. Interviews were conducted, and a focus group was established using an interview guide of health care workers from both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was performed by 2 independent researchers. Results: A total of 14 participants took part in the study: 6 (43%) participants joined the focus group, and 8 (57%) participants took part in the individual interviews. We identified 13 factors based on four themes: (1) factors specifically related to SMARTresponse, (2) vision on innovation, (3) match with health care activities, and (4) materials and resources involved. Signaling function, SMARTresponse as prevention, patient category, representatives, and implementation strategy were identified as facilitators. Perception of patient repositioning, accessibility to pressure injury aids, and connectivity were identified as barriers. Conclusions: Several conditions must be met to enhance the adoption of the Mercury Advance SMARTcare solution, including the engagement of representatives during training and a reliable wireless network. The identified factors can be used to facilitate the implementation process. JMIR Nursing 2024;7:e47992
DOCUMENT
Background: Research on maternity care often focuses on factors that prevent good communication and collaboration and rarely includes important stakeholders – parents – as co-researchers. To understand how professionals and parents in Dutch maternity care accomplish constructive communication and collaboration, we examined their interactions in the clinic, looking for “good practice”. Methods: We used the video-reflexive ethnographic method in 9 midwifery practices and 2 obstetric units. Findings: We conducted 16 meetings where participants reflected on video recordings of their clinical interactions. We found that informal strategies facilitate communication and collaboration: “talk work” – small talk and humour – and “work beyond words” – familiarity, use of sight, touch, sound, and non-verbal gestures. When using these strategies, participants noted that it is important to be sensitive to context, to the values and feelings of others, and to the timing of care. Our analysis of their ways of being sensitive shows that good communication and collaboration involves “paradoxical care”, e.g., concurrent acts of “regulated spontaneity” and “informal formalities”. Discussion: Acknowledging and reinforcing paradoxical care skills will help caregivers develop the competencies needed to address the changing demands of health care. The video-reflexive ethnographic method offers an innovative approach to studying everyday work, focusing on informal and implicit aspects of practice and providing a bottom up approach, integrating researchers, professionals and parents. Conclusion: Good communication and collaboration in maternity care involves “paradoxical care” requiring social sensitivity and self-reflection, skills that should be included as part of professional training.
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
Business innovation is a multidisciplinary area of expertise that bridges the gap between traditional areas of study such as business administration, organizational studies, marketing, design, engineering and entrepreneurship. Business innovation focuses on creating, accelerating and managing new and sustainable business models through innovation (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Keeley, Walters, Pikkel, and Quinn, 2013).
DOCUMENT
Abstract Objective: To describe changes in the health service delivery process experienced by professionals, patients and informal caregivers during implementation of a national programme to improve quality of care of geriatric rehabilitation by improving integration of health service delivery processes. Study setting: Sixteen skilled nursing facilities. Study design: Prospective study, comparing three consecutive cohorts. Data collection: Professionals (elderly care physicians, physiotherapists and nursing staff) rated four domains of health service delivery at admission and at discharge of 1075 patients. In addition, these patients [median age 79 (Interquartile range 71–85) years, 63% females] and their informal caregivers rated their experiences on these domains 4 weeks after discharge. Principal findings: During the three consecutive cohorts, professionals reported improvement on the domain team cooperation, including assessment for intensive treatment and information transfer among professionals. Fewer improvements were reported within the domains alignment with patients’ needs, care coordination and care quality. Between the cohorts, according to patients (n = 521) and informal caregivers (n = 319) there were no changes in the four domains of health service delivery. Conclusion: This national programme resulted in small improvements in team cooperation as reported by the professionals. No effects were found on patients’ and informal caregivers’ perceptions of health service delivery.
DOCUMENT
