Managing boundaries in primary care service improvement: A developmental approach to communities of practice

Implementation Science

Gill Harvey¹  Kieran Walshe¹  Roman Kislov¹ 

[1] Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK

关键词: UK;    CLAHRC;    National Health Service;    Service improvement;    Primary care;    Organisational boundaries;    Professional boundaries;    Communities of practice;   

Others  :  813896
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-7-97

 received in 2012-05-06, accepted in 2012-10-10,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Effective implementation of change in healthcare organisations involves multiple professional and organisational groups and is often impeded by professional and organisational boundaries that present relatively impermeable barriers to sharing knowledge and spreading work practices. Informed by the theory of communities of practice (CoPs), this study explored the effects of intra-organisational and inter-organisational boundaries on the implementation of service improvement within and across primary healthcare settings and on the development of multiprofessional and multi-organisational CoPs during this process.

Methods

The study was conducted within the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester—a collaborative partnership between the University of Manchester and local National Health Service organisations aiming to undertake applied health research and enhance its implementation in clinical practice. It deployed a qualitative embedded case study design, encompassing semistructured interviews, direct observation and documentary analysis, conducted in 2010–2011. The sample included practice doctors, nurses, managers and members of the CLAHRC implementation team.

Findings

The study showed that in spite of epistemic and status differences, professional boundaries between general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers co-located in the same practice over a relatively long period of time could be successfully bridged, leading to the formation of multiprofessional CoPs. While knowledge circulated relatively easily within these CoPs, barriers to knowledge sharing emerged at the boundary separating them from other groups existing in the same primary care setting. The strongest boundaries, however, lay between individual general practices, with inter-organisational knowledge sharing and collaboration between them remaining unequally developed across different areas due to historical factors, competition and strong organisational identification. Manipulated emergence of multi-organisational CoPs in the context of primary care may thus be problematic.

Conclusions

In cases when manipulated emergence of new CoPs is problematic, boundary issues could be addressed by adopting a developmental perspective on CoPs, which provides an alternative to the analytical and instrumental perspectives previously described in the CoP literature. This perspective implies a pragmatic, situational approach to mapping existing CoPs and their characteristics and potentially modifying them in the process of service improvement through the combination of internal and external facilitation.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Kislov et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Currie G: Managing knowledge across organisational and professional boundaries within public services. Publ Money Manag 2006, 26:83-84.
• [2]Harrison S, McDonald R: The Politics of Healthcare in Britain. London: SAGE Publications; 2008.
• [3]Currie G, Suhomlinova O: The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in the UK NHS: the triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy. Publ Admin 2006, 84:1-30.
• [4]Brown JS, Duguid P: Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organ Sci 1991, 2:40-57.
• [5]Brown JS, Duguid P: Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organ Sci 2001, 12:198-213.
• [6]Carlile PR: A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 2002, 13:442-455.
• [7]Akkerman SF, Bakker A: Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev Educ Res 2011, 81:132-169.
• [8]Wenger E: Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 2000, 7:225-246.
• [9]Lave J, Wenger E: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
• [10]Wenger E: Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
• [11]Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, Hawkins C: The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Acad Manage J 2005, 48:117-134.
• [12]le May A: Communities of Practice in Health and Social Care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
• [13]Wenger E: Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Edited by Blackmore C. London: Springer; 2010:179-198.
• [14]Addicott R, McGivern G, Ferlie E: Networks, organizational learning and knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks. Publ Money Manag 2006, 26:87-94.
• [15]Gabbay J, le May A: Practice-Based Evidence for Healthcare: Clinical Mindlines. Oxon: Routledge; 2011.
• [16]Hudson B: Pessimism and optimism in inter-professional working: The Sedgefield Integrated Team. J Interprof Care 2007, 21:3-15.
• [17]Kislov R, Harvey G, Walshe K: Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: lessons from the theory of communities of practice. Implementation Science 2011, 6:64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Wenger E, McDermott RA, Snyder W: Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press; 2002.
• [19]Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte PC, Graham ID: Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review. Implementation Science 2009, 4:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Ranmuthugala G, Plumb JJ, Cunningham FC, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J: How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:273. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Bartunek JM: Intergroup relationships and quality improvement in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety 2011, 20:i62-i66.
• [22]Bate SP, Robert G: Knowledge management and communities of practice in the private sector: Lessons for modernizing the National Health Service in England and Wales. Publ Admin 2002, 80:643-663.
• [23]Currie G, Finn R, Martin G: Spanning boundaries in pursuit of effective knowledge sharing within networks in the NHS. J Health Organ Manag 2007, 21:406-417.
• [24]Braithwaite J, Westbrook MT, Robinson M, Michael S, Pirone C, Robinson P: Improving patient safety: the comparative views of patient-safety specialists, workforce staff and managers. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20:424-431.
• [25]Travaglia JF, Nugus PI, Greenfield D, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J: Visualising differences in professionals’ perspectives on quality and safety. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 21:778-783.
• [26]Degeling P, Maxwell S, Kennedy J, Coyle B: Medicine, management, and modernisation: a “danse macabre”? BMJ 2003, 326:649-652.
• [27]Oborn E, Dawson S: Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams: Struggle, accommodation and privilege. Hum Relat 2010, 63:1835-1857.
• [28]Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M, Hawkins C: Interlocking Interactions: The diffusion of innovations in health care. Hum Relat 2002, 55:1429-1449.
• [29]Martin GP, Currie G, Finn R: Reconfiguring or reproducing intra-professional boundaries? Specialist expertise, generalist knowledge and the 'modernization’ of the medical workforce. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68:1191-1198.
• [30]Braithwaite J: Between-group behaviour in health care: gaps, edges, boundaries, disconnections, weak ties, spaces and holes. A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:330. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Kellogg KC, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J: Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organ Sci 2006, 17:22-44.
• [32]Carlile PR: Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 2004, 15:555-568.
• [33]Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte PC, Graham ID: Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice. Implementation Science 2009, 4:11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Wenger EC, Snyder WM: Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harv Bus Rev 2000, 78:139-146.
• [35]Kislov R: From a project team to a community of practice? An exploration of boundary and identity in the context of healthcare collaboration. Dublin, Ireland: Paper presented at the 8th Organisational Behaviour in Healthcare Conference; 2012. April.
• [36]Hildreth P, Kimble C, Wright P: Communities of practice in the distributed international environment. J Knowl Manag 2000, 4:27-38.
• [37]Sense A: Learning generators: Project teams re-conceptualized. Proj Manag J 2003, 3:4-12.
• [38]Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Call for proposals to establish pilots. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/files/pdfs/CLAHRC%20-%20Call%20for%20Proposals%20for%20Pilots.pdf webcite.
• [39]Cooksey D: A review of UK health research funding. London: The Stationery Office; 2006.
• [40]Gerrish K: Tapping the potential of the National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) to develop research capacity and capability in nursing. J Res Nurs 2010, 15:215-225.
• [41]Martin GP, Ward V, Hendy J, Rowley E, Nancarrow S, Heaton J, Britten N, Fielden S, Ariss S: The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 2011, 7:489-509.
• [42]The Breakthrough Series: IHI’s Collaborative Model for Achieving Breakthrough Improvement. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2003.
• [43]Øvretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, Cretin S, Gustafson D, McInnes K, McLeod H, Molfenter T, Plsek P, Robert G, Shortell S, Wilson T: Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health Care 2002, 11:345-351.
• [44]Harvey G, Fitzgerald L, Fielden S, McBride A, Waterman H, Bamford D, Kislov R, Boaden R: The NIHR collaboration for leadership in applied health research and care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy. Implementation Science 2011, 6:96. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Humphreys J, Harvey G, Coleiro M, Butler B, Barclay A, Gwozdziewicz M, O’Donoghue D, Hegarty J: A collaborative project to improve identification and management of patients with chronic kidney disease in a primary care setting in Greater Manchester. BMJ Qual Saf 2012, 21:700-708.
• [46]Yin RK: Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd edition. London: SAGE Publications; 2003.
• [47]Xyrichis A, Lowton K: What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 2008, 45:140-153.
• [48]King N: Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Edited by Cassell C, Symon G. London: SAGE Publications; 2004:256-270.
• [49]Nadin S, Cassell C: Using data matrices. In Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Edited by Cassell C, Symon G. London: SAGE Publications; 2004:271-287.
• [50]Creswell JW: Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. London: SAGE Publications; 2003.
• [51]Charles-Jones H, Latimer J, May C: Transforming general practice: the redistribution of medical work in primary care. Sociol Health & Illness 2003, 25:71-92.
• [52]Tagliaventi MR, Mattarelli E: The role of networks of practice, value sharing, and operational proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups. Hum Relat 2006, 59:291-319.
• [53]Nancarrow SA, Borthwick AM: Dynamic professional boundaries in the healthcare workforce. Sociol Health & Illness 2005, 27:897-919.
• [54]Currie G, Finn R, Martin G: Professional competition and modernizing the clinical workforce in the NHS. Work Employ Soc 2009, 23:267-284.
• [55]Lathlean J, le May A: Communities of practice: An opportunity for interagency working. J Clin Nurs 2002, 11:394-398.
• [56]Swan J, Scarbrough H, Robertson M: The construction of 'communities of practice' in the management of innovation. Manag Learn 2002, 33:477-496.
• [57]Borrill C, West M, Shapiro D, Rees A: Team working and effectiveness in health care. Br J Healthc Manag 2000, 6:364-371.
• [58]Poulton BC, West MA: The determinants of effectiveness in primary health care teams. J Interprof Care 1999, 13:7-18.