Looking in the wrong places: why traditional solutions to the diffusion of innovation will not work
Abstract
Imagine your elderly parent is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) following a respiratory insufficiency. She is intubated for more than 2 days. As the hours go by, there is an increasing risk that stomach fluids and bacteria from her mouth enter into her lungs as the inflatable cuff that holds her tracheal intubation tube in place leaks.1 As a consequence, she develops ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), which is associated with a significantly greater risk of dying in the days to come. The good news is that a technology exists—the Venner-PneuX system—that almost entirely prevents such leaking of fluids into the lungs.2 The bad news is that uptake appears low and slow. Worse, most ICU clinicians, nurses, managers and certainly patients are unlikely to be aware of this technology, despite it having been available since 2007. The story of VAP is one of many that helps us understand why the adoption of innovation in the National Health Service (NHS) remains elusive, despite much policy attention. It illustrates that we should turn our attention to those individuals and organisations we wish to take up innovation—rather than solely the innovators themselves. Our key thesis is that efforts to support and promote the creation of innovation itself will not solve this problem. This argument has not been set out sufficiently before. The real challenge is to create healthcare environments in which the benefits of innovations can readily be seen and understood by those who can use them to improve patient care, and in which healthcare organisations can readily support the procurement and integration of those innovations into their systems and processes of care. In order to do this, we need to create organisational cultures, capabilities, infrastructure, processes and resources that make the uptake of innovation more likely. We need to create this …
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The reasons for the lagging introduction of novel patient monitoring in the ICU could be rooted in a mismatch of expectations and assumptions by clinical users and manufacturers about novel patient monitoring.
“The manifold reasons for this could be rooted in a mismatch of expectations and assumptions by clinical users and manufacturers about novel patient monitoring [19,20].”
From Clinical requirements of future patient monitoring in the intensive care unit: qualitative study (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Heitmueller, A., Bull, A., & Oh, S.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College Health Partners, London, UK
- Corresponding author
- Heitmueller, Axel
- Venue
- BMJ Innovations
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2016-03-25
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 41-47
- ISSN
- 2055-642X (ISSN-L)
- 2055-8074
- OpenAlex
- W2302779238
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 5.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ Innovations (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Keywords
- diffusion of innovations, innovation adoption, ventilator-associated pneumonia, National Health Service, health care organization, organizational culture, technology procurement, patient safety, intensive care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review