Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of negotiation training delivered to senior clinicians, managers and executives, by exploring whether staff members implemented negotiation skills in their workplace following the training, and if so, how and when.

This is a qualitative study involving face-to-face interviews with 18 senior clinicians, managers and executives who completed a two-day intensive negotiation skills training course. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and inductive interpretive analysis techniques were used to identify common themes. Research setting was a large tertiary care hospital and health service in regional Australia.

Participants generally reported positive affective and utility reactions to the training, and attempted to implement at least some of the skills in the workplace. The main enabler was provision of a Negotiation Toolkit to assist in preparing and conducting negotiations. The main barrier was lack of time to reflect on the principles and prepare for upcoming negotiations. Participants reported that ongoing skill development and retention were not adequately addressed; suggestions for improving sustainability included provision of refresher training and mentoring.

Limitations include self-reported data, and interview questions positively elicited examples of training translation.

The training was well matched to participant needs, with negotiation a common and daily activity for most healthcare professionals. Implementation of the skills showed potential for improving collaboration and problem solving in the workplace. Practical examples of how the skills were used in the workplace are provided.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first international study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of an integrative bargaining negotiation training program targeting executives, senior clinicians and management staff in a large healthcare organization.

The complex and occasionally chaotic nature of health care has been previously described in the literature, as has the broadening recognition that different management approaches are required for different types of problems rather than a “one size fits all” approach. The CYNEFIN framework from Snowden outlines a consistent cognitive approach that offers the leader and leadership team an ability to urgently apply the correct actions to a given situation. This paper proposes a variant CYNEFIN approach for healthcare.

Consistent and accurate decision-making within health care is the hallmark of an effective and pragmatic leader and leadership team. An awareness of how one’s cognitive biases and heuristics may adversely impact on this cognitive process is paramount, as is an understanding of the calibration between fast and slow thinking.

The authors propose a variant CYNEFIN approach for health care of “act-probe-sense-respond” to resolve complex and time-critical emergency scenarios, using the differing contexts of a cardiac arrest and an evolving crisis management problem as examples. The variant serves as a pragmatic sense-making framework for the health-care leader and leadership team that can be adopted for many time-critical crisis situations.

The variant serves as a pragmatic sense-making framework for the health-care leader that can be adopted for many crisis situations.

Surgical services are settings where resilient performance (RP) is necessary to cope with a wide range of variabilities. Although RP can benefit from a supportive built environment (BE), prior studies have focused on the operating room, giving scant attention to support areas. This study takes a broader perspective, aiming at developing BE design knowledge supportive of RP at the surgical service as a whole.

Seven BE design prescriptions developed in a previous work in the context of internal logistics of hospitals, and thus addressing interactions between workspaces, were used as a point of departure. The prescriptions were used as a data analysis framework in a case study of the surgical service of a medium-sized private hospital. The scope of the study included surgical and support areas, in addition to workflows involving patients and family members, staff, equipment, sterile instruments and materials, supplies, and waste. Data collection included document analysis, observations, interviews, and meetings with hospital staff.

Results identified 60 examples of using the prescriptions, 77% of which were related to areas other than the operating rooms. The developed design knowledge is framed as a set of prescriptions, examples, and their association to workflows and areas, indicating where it should be applied.

The design knowledge is new in surgical services and offers guidance to both BE and logistics designers.

The purpose of this paper is to report on a process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) intervention study that tested the effectiveness of classroom- and simulation-based crew resource management courses, alone and in combination, and identifies organisational barriers and facilitators to implementation of team training programmes in healthcare.

The RCT design consisted of a before and after study with a team training intervention. Quantitative data were gathered on utility and affective reactions to training, and on teamwork knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of the learners. A sample of participants was interviewed at the conclusion of the study. Interview responses were analysed, alongside qualitative elements of the classroom course critique, to search for evidence, context, and facilitation clues to the implementation process.

The RCT method provided scientifically robust data that supported the benefits of classroom training. Qualitative data identified a number of facilitators to implementation of team training, and shed light on some of the ways that learning was diffused throughout the organisation. Barriers to successful implementation were also identified, including hospital time and resource constraints and poor organisational communication.

Quantitative randomised methods have intermittently been used to evaluate team training interventions in healthcare. Despite two decades of team training trials, however, the authors do not know as well as the authors would like what goes on inside the “black box” of such RCTs. While results are usually centred on outcomes, this study also provides insight into the context and mechanisms associated with those outcomes and identifies barriers and facilitators to successful intervention implementation.