High-performance work systems in health care, part 3: the role of the business case.
ABSTRACT Growing evidence suggests the systematic use of high-performance work practices (HPWPs), or evidence-based management practices, holds promise to improve organizational performance, including improved quality and efficiency, in health care organizations. However, little is understood about the investment required for HPWP implementation, nor the business case for HPWP investment.
The aim of this study is to enhance our understanding about organizations' perspectives of the business case for HPWP investment, including reasons for and approaches to evaluating that investment.
We used a multicase study approach to explore the business case for HPWPs in U.S. health care organizations. We conducted semistructured interviews with 67 key informants across five sites. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to qualitative analysis using both deductive and inductive methods.
The organizations in our study did not appear to have explicit financial return expectations for investments in HPWPs. Instead, the HPWP investment was viewed as an important factor contributing to successful execution of the organization's strategic priorities and a means for competitive differentiation in the market. Informants' characterizations of the HPWP investment did not involve financial terms; rather, descriptions of these investments as redeployment of existing resources or a shift of managerial time redirected attention from cost considerations. Evaluation efforts were rare, with organizations using broad organizational metrics to justify HPWP investment or avoiding formal evaluation altogether.
Our findings are consistent with prior studies that have found that health care organizations have not systematically evaluated the financial outcomes of their quality-related initiatives or tend to forget formal business case analysis for investments they may perceive as "inevitable." In the absence of a clearly described association between HPWPs and outcomes or some other external imperative, ongoing HPWP investment may be at risk relative to other quality-related initiatives, particularly if organizational resources are constrained.
Article: Learning from storytellingHealth care management review 04/2012; 37(2):109. DOI:10.1097/HMR.0b013e31824a7fda · 1.30 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The translation of research evidence into practice is facilitated by clinical trials such as those sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) that help disseminate cancer care innovations to community-based physicians and provider organizations. However, CCOP participation involves unsubsidized costs and organizational challenges that raise concerns about sustained provider participation in clinical trials. This study was designed to improve our understanding of why providers participate in the CCOP in order to inform the decision-making process of administrators, clinicians, organizations, and policy-makers considering CCOP participation. We conducted a multi-site qualitative study of five provider organizations engaged with the CCOP. We interviewed 41 administrative and clinician key informants, asking about what motivated CCOP participation, and what benefits they associated with involvement. We deductively and inductively analyzed verbatim interview transcripts, and explored themes that emerged. Interviewees expressed both "altruistic" and "self-interested" motives for CCOP participation. Altruistic reasons included a desire to increase access to clinical trials and feeling an obligation to patients. Self-interested reasons included the desire to enhance reputation, and a need to integrate disparate cancer care activities. Perceived benefits largely matched expressed motives for CCOP participation, and included internal and external benefits to the organization, and quality of care benefits for both patients and participating physicians. The motives and benefits providers attributed to CCOP participation are consistent with translational research goals, offering evidence that participation can contribute value to providers by expanding access to innovative medical care for patients in need.Contemporary clinical trials 08/2012; 33(6):1143-9. DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2012.08.008 · 1.99 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: Provider-based research networks (PBRNs) make clinical trials available in community-based practice settings, where most people receive their care, but provider participation requires both financial and in-kind contributions. PURPOSE:: The aim of this study was to explore whether providers believe there is a business case for participating in PBRNs and what factors contribute to the business case. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH:: We use a multiple case study methodology approach to examine the National Cancer Institute's community clinical oncology program, a long-standing federally funded PBRN. Interviews with 41 key informants across five sites, selected on the basis of organizational maturity, were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. We analyzed interview transcripts using an iterative, deductive process to identify themes and subthemes in the data. FINDINGS:: We found that a business case for provider participation in PBRNs may exist if both direct and indirect financial benefits are identified and included in the analysis and if the time horizon is long enough to allow those benefits to be realized. We identified specific direct and indirect financial benefits that were perceived as important contributors to the business case and the perceived length of time required for a positive return to accrue. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:: As the lack of a business case may result in provider reluctance to participate in PBRNs, knowledge of the benefits we identified may be crucial to encouraging and sustaining participation, thereby preserving patient access to innovative community-based treatments. The results are also relevant to federally funded PBRNs outside of oncology or to providers considering participation in any clinical trials research.Health care management review 10/2012; 38(4). DOI:10.1097/HMR.0b013e31827292fc · 1.30 Impact Factor