Implementing large-scale workforce change: learning from 55 pilot sites of allied health workforce redesign in Queensland, Australia

Human Resources for Health

Kerry Vanniekerk-Lyons¹  Anna M Moran¹  Sandra Grace¹  Alison Roots¹  Susan A Nancarrow¹ 

[1]School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Military Road, East Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia

关键词: Inductive logic reasoning;    Allied health;    Workforce flexibility;    Mixed methods;    Proposition testing;    Logic model;    Implementation;    Workforce change;    Role redesign;   

Others  :  822086
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4491-11-66

 received in 2013-08-28, accepted in 2013-11-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Increasingly, health workforces are undergoing high-level ‘re-engineering’ to help them better meet the needs of the population, workforce and service delivery. Queensland Health implemented a large scale 5-year workforce redesign program across more than 13 health-care disciplines. This study synthesized the findings from this program to identify and codify mechanisms associated with successful workforce redesign to help inform other large workforce projects.

Methods

This study used Inductive Logic Reasoning (ILR), a process that uses logic models as the primary functional tool to develop theories of change, which are subsequently validated through proposition testing. Initial theories of change were developed from a systematic review of the literature and synthesized using a logic model. These theories of change were then developed into propositions and subsequently tested empirically against documentary, interview, and survey data from 55 projects in the workforce redesign program.

Results

Three overarching principles were identified that optimized successful workforce redesign: (1) drivers for change need to be close to practice; (2) contexts need to be supportive both at the local levels and legislatively; and (3) mechanisms should include appropriate engagement, resources to facilitate change management, governance, and support structures. Attendance to these factors was uniformly associated with success of individual projects.

Conclusions

ILR is a transparent and reproducible method for developing and testing theories of workforce change. Despite the heterogeneity of projects, professions, and approaches used, a consistent set of overarching principles underpinned success of workforce change interventions. These concepts have been operationalized into a workforce change checklist.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Nancarrow et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sibbald B, Laurant M, Scott T: Changing task profiles. In Primary care in the driver's seat? Organizational reform in European primary care. Edited by Saltman A, Rico A, Boerma W. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press; 2006.
• [2]American College of Clinical Pharmacy: A vision of pharmacy’s future roles, responsibilities, and manpower needs in the United States. Pharmacotherapy 2000, 20:991-1020.
• [3]Centre for Allied Health Evidence (CAHE): Systematic review of the literature on support workers in community based rehabilitation. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia; 2006.
• [4]Queensland Health: Queensland Health Strategic Plan 2012–2016. 2012.
• [5]Bosley S, Dale J: Healthcare assistants in general pracice: practical and conceptual issues in skill-mix change. Br J Gen Pract 2008, 58:118-124.
• [6]Miers M: Professional boundaries and interprofessional working. In Understanding Interprofessional Working in Health and Social Care. Edited by Pollard KC, Thomas J, Miers M. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillian; 2010:105-120.
• [7]Sadkowsky K, Hagan P, Kelman C, Liu C: Health services in the city and the bush: measures of access and use derived from linked administrative data. Canberra: Commonweatlh Department of Health and Ageing; 2001.
• [8]Richards A, Carley J, Jenkins-Clarke S: Skill mix between nurses and doctors working in primary-care delegation or allocation: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud 2000, 37:185-197.
• [9]Lewy L: The complexities of interprofessional learning/working: has the agenda lost it’s way? Health Educ J 2010, 69:4-12.
• [10]Australian Health Workforce Advisory Committee (AHWAC): The Australian allied health workforce: An overview of workforce planning issues. In AHWAC Report 2006. Sydney, Australia: 2006; 2006.
• [11]Department of Health: Model of Care: Overview and guidelines. Western Australia: WA Health Networks Perth, Dpeartment of Health WA; 2007.
• [12]Australian Health Workforce Committee AMWACaAHWOC: A models of care approach to workforce planning - information paper. In Health Workforce Information Paper 1. Sydney: ; 2005.
• [13]Homeming LJ, Kuipers P, Nihal A: Orthopaedic podiatry triage: process outcomes of a skill mix initiative. Aust Health Rev 2012, 36:457-460.
• [14]Nancarrow SA, Enderby PM, Ariss SM, Smith SA, Booth A, Campbell MJ, Cantrell A, Parker S: The impact of enhancing the effectiveness of interdisciplinary team working. Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Programme: Southampton; 2012.
• [15]Nancarrow SA, Shuttleworth P, Tongue A, Brown L: Support workers in intermediate care. Health Soc Care Community 2005, 13:338-344.
• [16]Ottley E, Clarke G: McGill M, Tongue A: Accelerated Development Programme for Support Workers in Intermediate Care. Reporting impact and improvement. Changing Workforce Programme: London NHS Modernisation Agency; 2004.
• [17]Hyde P, McBride A, Young R, Walshe K: Role redesign: new ways of working in the NHS. Personnel Rev 2005, 34:697-712.
• [18]Health Workforce Australia: Workforce Innovation: Caring for Older People program - Final Report. Adelaide; 2012.
• [19]Humphreys J, Wakerman J, Kuipers P, Wells R, Russell D, Siegloff S, Homer K: Improving workforce retention: Developing an integrated logic model to maximize sustainability of small rural and remote health care services. Canberra: Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute; 2009.
• [20]Donabedian A: The quality of care. How can it be assessed? 1988. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997, 121:1145-1150.
• [21]Baxter S, Killoran A, Kelly M, Goyder E: Synthesizing diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Public health 2010, 124:99-106.
• [22]Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications Limited; 1997.
• [23]Aspen Institute, ActKnowledge and the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Making sense: Reviewing program design with theory of change. 2003. http://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/making_sense.pdf webcite
• [24]Blamey A, Mackenzie M: Theories of change and realistic evaluation peas in a Pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation 2007, 13:439-455.
• [25]Booth A: “Brimful of starlite”: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc 2006, 94:421-429.
• [26]Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC): Data Collection Checklist. 2002. http://www.epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-resources webcite
• [27]Critical appraisal skills program (CASP). http://www.casp-uk.net/; webcite Accessed Dec 15, 2012
• [28]Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (MAStARI) - Randomized Control Trial/Pseudo-randomized Trial. [http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual-2011.pdf webcite]
• [29]Glaser B, Strauss A: Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.
• [30]Miles MB, Huberman AM: Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded source book. 2nd Edition edn. Thousand Oakes, California: Sage Publications; 1994.
• [31]King N: Template analysis. In Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. Edited by Symon G, Cassell C. London: Sage; 1998:118-134.
• [32]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009, 6:e1000097.
• [33]Martin GP, Currie G, Finn R, McDonald R: The medium-term sustainability of organisational innovations in the National Health Service. Implement Sci 2011, 6:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul JA, Carroll S, Bitz J: Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Millbank Q 2012, 90:421-456.
• [35]Commission P: Australia’s Health Workforce. In Research Report. Canberra; 2005.
• [36]Smith R, Duffy J: Developing a competent and flexible workforce using the calderdale framework. Int J Ther Rehabil 2010, 17:254-262.
• [37]Kilpatrick K, Lavoie-Tremblay M, Ritchie JA, Lamothe L, Doran D: Boundary work and the introduction of acute care nurse practitioners in healthcare teams. J Adv Nurs 2012, 68:1504-1515.
• [38]Nancarrow SA, Roots A, Moran A, Grace S, Lyons K, Hulcombe J, Hurwood A: Queensland health practitioners’ models of care project”: evaluation, learning, and upscaling of results for a national audience. Adelaide: Health Workforce Australia; 2013.
• [39]O’Malia A, Hills AP, Wagner S: Repositioning social work in the modern workforce: the development of a social work assistant role. Aust Social Work 2013, 1-11. DOI 10.1080/0312407X.2013.830754