↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the potential of a multi-level approach to improve capability for continuous organizational improvement and learning in a Swedish healthcare region

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring the potential of a multi-level approach to improve capability for continuous organizational improvement and learning in a Swedish healthcare region
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3129-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. E. Nyström, E. Höög, R. Garvare, M. Andersson Bäck, D. D. Terris, J. Hansson

Abstract

Eldercare and care of people with functional impairments is organized by the municipalities in Sweden. Improving care in these areas is complex, with multiple stakeholders and organizations. Appropriate strategies to develop capability for continuing organizational improvement and learning (COIL) are needed. The purpose of our study was to develop and pilot-test a flexible, multilevel approach for COIL capability building and to identify what it takes to achieve changes in key actors' approaches to COIL. The approach, named "Sustainable Improvement and Development through Strategic and Systematic Approaches" (SIDSSA), was applied through an action-research and action-learning intervention. The SIDSSA approach was tested in a regional research and development (R&D) unit, and in two municipalities handling care of the elderly and people with functional impairments. Our approach included a multilevel strategy, development loops of five flexible phases, and an action-learning loop. The approach was designed to support systems understanding, strategic focus, methodological practices, and change process knowledge - all of which required double-loop learning. Multiple qualitative methods, i.e., repeated interviews, process diaries, and documents, provided data for conventional content analyses. The new approach was successfully tested on all cases and adopted and sustained by the R&D unit. Participants reported new insights and skills. The development loop facilitated a sense of coherence and control during uncertainty, improved planning and problem analysis, enhanced mapping of context and conditions, and supported problem-solving at both the individual and unit levels. The systems-level view and structured approach helped participants to explain, motivate, and implement change initiatives, especially after working more systematically with mapping, analyses, and goal setting. An easily understood and generalizable model internalized by key organizational actors is an important step before more complex development models can be implemented. SIDSSA facilitated individual and group learning through action-learning and supported systems-level views and structured approaches across multiple organizational levels. Active involvement of diverse organizational functions and levels in the learning process was facilitated. However, the time frame was too short to fully test all aspects of the approach, specifically in reaching beyond the involved managers to front-line staff and patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 39 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 43 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,823,299
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,579
of 7,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,032
of 330,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#94
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.