Organisational ‘know-where’ and ‘know-when’: re-framing configurations and distributions of knowledge in organisations

Merging existing practices with new ones: the adjustment of organizational routines to using cancer patient pathways in primary healthcare

Background

The introduction of new tools can bring unintended consequences for organizational routines. Cancer Patient Pathways (CPP) were introduced into the Swedish healthcare system in 2015 to shorten time to diagnosis and treatment. Primary healthcare (PHC) plays a central role since cancer diagnosis often begins in PHC units. Our study aimed to understand how PHC units adjusted organizational routines to utilizing CPPs.

Method

Six PHC units of varied size from both urban and rural areas in northern Sweden were included. Grounded theory method was used to collect and analyse group interviews at each unit. Nine group interviews with nurses and physicians, for a total of 41 participants, were performed between March and November 2019. The interviews focused on CPPs as tools, the PHC units’ routines and providers’ experiences with using CPPs in their daily work.

Results

Our analysis captured how PHC units adjusted organizational routines to utilizing CPPs by fusing existing practices with new practices to offer better quality of care. Specifically, three overarching organizational routines within the PHC units were identified. First, Manoeuvring diverse patient needs with easier patient flow, the PHC units handled the diverse needs of the population while simultaneously drawing upon CPPs to ease the patient flow within the healthcare system. Second, (Dis) integrating internal know-how, the PHC units drew upon internal competence even when PHC know-how was not taken into account by those driving the CPP initiative. Third, Coping with unequal relationships toward secondary care, the PHC units dealt with being in an unequal position while adopting CPPs instead further decreased possibilities to influence decision-making between care-levels.

Conclusion

Adopting CPPs as a tool within PHC units brought various unintended consequences in organizational routines. Our study from northern Sweden illustrates that the PHC know-how needs to be integrated into the healthcare system to improve the use of new tools as CPP. Further, the relationships between different levels of care should be taken in account when introducing new tools for healthcare. Also, when adopting innovations, unintended consequences need to be further explored empirically in diverse healthcare contexts internationally in order to generate deeper knowledge in the research area.

Intensive care nurses on social media: An exploration of knowledge exchange on an intensive care virtual community of practice

Aims and objectives

To explore the nature of knowledge exchange on a multi‐disciplinary Australasian intensive care virtual community of practice, “ICUConnect.”

Background

Current organisational structures and cultures constrain the social networks of healthcare professionals, limiting access to contemporary best practice knowledge. While virtual communities can facilitate knowledge and clinical expertise exchange in professional networks, their effectiveness has not been established.

Design

A sequential mixed‐methods design with a quantitative core and qualitative supplementary component was used to explore the content of discussions from an intensive care virtual community. SRQR has been used to report this study.

Methods

Email archives of an intensive care listserv (2003–2013) were mined using a two‐stage sampling technique to identify discussion threads (with >2 posts) concerning ventilator or airway practices (cluster) and two sets of 20 threads (stratified across years). Summative content analysis was used to examine both manifest and latent content.

Results

Forty threads containing 326 emails posted by 133 individuals from 80 organisations were analysed. Nurses contributed 68% (55% were in clinical leadership roles) and physicians 27%. Three subject areas were identified: clinical practices (71%); equipment (23%); and clinical governance (6%). “Knowledge‐requested” and “knowledge‐supplied” posts were categorised as follows: experiential and explicit (33% and 16%, respectively); experiential (27% and 35%); or explicit (40% and 17%). Knowledge supplied was also categorised as “know‐how” (20%); “know‐why” (5%) or “no knowledge” exchanged (6%). The central construct of virtual community work was identified with six elements that facilitated participation and knowledge exchange including: (a) the discussion thread; (b) sharing of artefacts; (c) community; (d) cordiality; (e) maven work; and (f) promotion of the VC. Members asked questions to benchmark their practice, while those who answered were focused on ensuring that best practices were delivered.

Conclusions

ICUConnect reflected characteristics of a virtual community of practice, enabling key benefits for members and the broader Australasian intensive care community, especially access to best practice knowledge from clinical experts.

Relevance to clinical practice

This study demonstrated that a practice‐based VC can function effectively as a VCoP to establish an effective professional network where members have access to up‐to‐date best practice knowledge. Healthcare organisations could leverage VCs to support the professional development of HCPs and ensure that local clinical practices are based on contemporaneous knowledge. Participation by nurses in these communities facilitates individual professional development and access to important clinical knowledge and expertise, and ultimately reinforcing the unique position of nursing in delivering effective, consistent high‐quality patient care.