Innovation sustainability in challenging health-care contexts: Embedding clinically led change in routine practice
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The need for organizational innovation as a means of improving health-care quality and containing costs is widely recognized, but while a growing body of research has improved knowledge of implementation, very little has considered the challenges involved in sustaining change – especially organizational change led ‘bottom-up’ by frontline clinicians. This study addresses this lacuna, taking a longitudinal, qualitative case-study approach to understanding the paths to sustainability of four organizational innovations. It highlights the importance of the interaction between organizational context, nature of the innovation and strategies deployed in achieving sustainability. It discusses how positional influence of service leads, complexity of innovation, networks of support, embedding in existing systems, and proactive responses to changing circumstances can interact to sustain change. In the absence of cast-iron evidence of effectiveness, wider notions of value may be successfully invoked to sustain innovation. Sustainability requires continuing effort through time, rather than representing a final state to be achieved. Our study offers new insights into the process of sustainability of organizational change, and elucidates the complement of strategies needed to make bottom-up change last in challenging contexts replete with competing priorities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
There is a lack of consensus on how to define sustainability.
“Further complicating this research area is the lack of consensus on how to define sustainability.”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
Failure to sustain is detrimental to improvement efforts in general because staff, patient and public opinion of improvement initiatives declines and enthusiasm for future programmes is lost.
“This has also been shown to be detrimental to improvement efforts in general as staff, patient and public opinion of improvement initiatives declines and enthusiasm for engaging in future programmes is lost [9, 10].”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
The lack of consensus on sustainability has led to contradictory recommendations for influencing sustainability and debate on what qualifies as a sustained improvement.
“This has led to contradictory recommendations for influencing sustainability and debate on what qualifies as a sustained improvement [10, 13].”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 116
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [6]Secretary of State for Health High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. London: The Stationery Office, 2008
- Authors
- Martin, G. P., Weaver, S., Currie, G., Finn, R., & McDonald, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Lecturer in Media and Communications, Sociology and Communications, Brunei University, School of Social Sciences, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Venue
- Health Services Management Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 190-199
- ISSN
- 0951-4848 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1044
- PMC
- PMC3667693
- OpenAlex
- W2144295947
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 7.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Services Management Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (09/1001/40)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Keywords
- bottom-up change, organizational innovation, healthcare quality improvement, routine practice, social support networks, competing priorities
- MeSH terms
- Delivery of Health Care, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Organizational Innovation, Quality of Health Care, Organizational Case Studies
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