Workplace-based knowledge exchange programmes between academics, policy-makers and providers of healthcare: a qualitative study.

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Stephanie Kumpunen, Jake Matthews, Thuvarahan Amuthalingam, Greg Irving, Bernadeta Bridgwood, Luisa M Pettigrew
{"title":"Workplace-based knowledge exchange programmes between academics, policy-makers and providers of healthcare: a qualitative study.","authors":"Stephanie Kumpunen, Jake Matthews, Thuvarahan Amuthalingam, Greg Irving, Bernadeta Bridgwood, Luisa M Pettigrew","doi":"10.1136/leader-2023-000756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Workplace-based knowledge exchange programmes (WKEPs), such as job shadowing or secondments, offer potential for health and care providers, academics, and policy-makers to foster partnerships, develop local solutions and overcome key differences in practices. Yet opportunities for exchange can be hard to find and are poorly reported in the literature.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To understand the views of providers, academics and policy-makers regarding WKEPs, in particular, their motivations to participate in such exchanges and the perceived barriers and facilitators to participation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study involving semistructured interviews with 20 healthcare providers, academics and policy-makers in England. Rapid data collection and analysis techniques were employed. Interviews formed part of a wider scoping study that mapped the characteristics and existing literature related to WKEPs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interviewees reported being motivated to develop, sponsor and/or participate in WKEPs with a clear purpose and defined outcomes that could demonstrate the value of the time out of work to their organisations. Perceived barriers included competitive application processes for national fellowships, a lack of knowing how to identify with whom to undertake an exchange (varying 'tribes'), and the burdens of time, costs and administration regarding arranging exchanges. WKEPs were reported to work best where there was a perceived sense of shared purpose, long-standing relationship and trust between organisations. Facilitators included existing confidentiality agreements and/or shared professional standards, as well as funding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WKEPs were reported to be valuable experiences but required significant organisational buy-in and cooperation to arrange and sustain. To benefit emerging partnerships, such as the new integrated care systems in England, more outcomes evaluations of existing WKEPs are needed, and research focused on overcoming barriers to participation, such as time and costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":36677,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Leader","volume":" ","pages":"15-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Leader","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2023-000756","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Workplace-based knowledge exchange programmes (WKEPs), such as job shadowing or secondments, offer potential for health and care providers, academics, and policy-makers to foster partnerships, develop local solutions and overcome key differences in practices. Yet opportunities for exchange can be hard to find and are poorly reported in the literature.

Objectives: To understand the views of providers, academics and policy-makers regarding WKEPs, in particular, their motivations to participate in such exchanges and the perceived barriers and facilitators to participation.

Methods: A qualitative study involving semistructured interviews with 20 healthcare providers, academics and policy-makers in England. Rapid data collection and analysis techniques were employed. Interviews formed part of a wider scoping study that mapped the characteristics and existing literature related to WKEPs.

Results: Interviewees reported being motivated to develop, sponsor and/or participate in WKEPs with a clear purpose and defined outcomes that could demonstrate the value of the time out of work to their organisations. Perceived barriers included competitive application processes for national fellowships, a lack of knowing how to identify with whom to undertake an exchange (varying 'tribes'), and the burdens of time, costs and administration regarding arranging exchanges. WKEPs were reported to work best where there was a perceived sense of shared purpose, long-standing relationship and trust between organisations. Facilitators included existing confidentiality agreements and/or shared professional standards, as well as funding.

Conclusion: WKEPs were reported to be valuable experiences but required significant organisational buy-in and cooperation to arrange and sustain. To benefit emerging partnerships, such as the new integrated care systems in England, more outcomes evaluations of existing WKEPs are needed, and research focused on overcoming barriers to participation, such as time and costs.

学者、政策制定者和医疗服务提供者之间基于工作场所的知识交流计划:一项定性研究。
背景:以工作场所为基础的知识交流计划(WKEPs),如工作实习或借调,为医疗和护理服务提供者、学者和政策制定者提供了促进合作、开发本地解决方案和克服实践中的关键差异的潜力。然而,交流的机会可能很难找到,文献中的报道也很少:目的:了解医疗服务提供者、学术界和政策制定者对西九方案的看法,特别是他们参与此类交流的动机,以及他们认为的参与障碍和促进因素:这是一项定性研究,对英格兰的 20 名医疗服务提供者、学者和政策制定者进行了半结构式访谈。采用了快速数据收集和分析技术。访谈是更广泛的范围界定研究的一部分,该范围界定研究绘制了与 WKEP 相关的特征和现有文献:结果:受访者表示,他们有动力开发、赞助和/或参与有明确目的和界定成果的 WKEP,这些目的和成果可以证明工余时间对其组织的价值。受访者认为存在的障碍包括:国家研究金申请过程竞争激烈,不知道如何确定与谁进行交流(不同的 "部落"),以及安排交流的时间、费用和行政负担。据报告,如果各组织之间有共同的目标、长期的关系和信任感,世界九个人口众多 国家教育项目就能发挥最大的作用。促进因素包括现有的保密协议和/或共同的专业标准以及资金:据报告,西九EP 是宝贵的经验,但在安排和维持方面需要大量的组织认同和合作。为了使新出现的合作关系(如英格兰新的综合护理系统)受益,需要对现有的 WKEP 进行更多的成果评估,并重点研究如何克服参与的障碍,如时间和成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Leader
BMJ Leader Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.40%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信