Net benefits

Assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods

Frances Cunningham, Geetha Ranmuthugala, Johanna Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: In the 21st century, government and industry are supplementing hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization with network forms, compatible with principles of devolved governance and decentralization of services. Clinical networks are employed as a key health policy approach to engage clinicians in improving patient care in Australia. With significant investment in such networks in Australia and internationally, it is important to assess their effectiveness and sustainability as implementation mechanisms. 

Methods: 
In two purposively selected, musculoskeletal clinical networks, members and stakeholders were interviewed to ascertain their perceptions regarding key factors relating to network effectiveness and sustainability. We adopted a three-level approach to evaluating network effectiveness: at the community, network, and member levels, across the network lifecycle. 

Results: 
Both networks studied are advisory networks displaying characteristics of the ‘enclave’ type of non-hierarchical network. They are hybrids of the mandated and natural network forms. In the short term, at member level, both networks were striving to create connectivity and collaboration of members. Over the short to medium term, at network level, both networks applied multi-disciplinary engagement in successfully developing models of care as key outputs, and disseminating information to stakeholders. In the long term, at both community and network levels, stakeholders would measure effectiveness by the broader statewide influence of the network in changing and improving practice. At community level, in the long term, stakeholders acknowledged both networks had raised the profile, and provided a ‘voice’ for musculoskeletal conditions, evidencing some progress with implementation of the network mission while pursuing additional implementation strategies. 

Conclusions: 
This research sheds light on stakeholders’ perceptions of assessing clinical network effectiveness at community, network, and member levels during the network’s timeline, and on the role of networks and their contribution. Overall, stakeholders reported positive momentum and useful progress in network growth and development and saw their networks as providing valuable mechanisms for meeting instrumental goals and pursuing collaborative interests. Network forms can prove their utility in addressing ‘wicked problems,’ and these Australian clinical networks present a practical approach to the difficult issue of clinician engagement in state-level implementation of best practice for improving patient care and outcomes. 
Original languageEnglish
Article number108
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalImplementation Science
Volume7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Community Networks
Patient Care
Politics
Health Policy
Growth and Development
Practice Guidelines
Industry
Organizations
Research

Cite this

Cunningham, Frances ; Ranmuthugala, Geetha ; Westbrook, Johanna ; Braithwaite, Jeffrey. / Net benefits : Assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods. In: Implementation Science. 2012 ; Vol. 7. pp. 1-13.
@article{b4ba4a91cf264641ab1a88abd3ffd9a9,
title = "Net benefits: Assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods",
abstract = "Background: In the 21st century, government and industry are supplementing hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization with network forms, compatible with principles of devolved governance and decentralization of services. Clinical networks are employed as a key health policy approach to engage clinicians in improving patient care in Australia. With significant investment in such networks in Australia and internationally, it is important to assess their effectiveness and sustainability as implementation mechanisms. Methods: In two purposively selected, musculoskeletal clinical networks, members and stakeholders were interviewed to ascertain their perceptions regarding key factors relating to network effectiveness and sustainability. We adopted a three-level approach to evaluating network effectiveness: at the community, network, and member levels, across the network lifecycle. Results: Both networks studied are advisory networks displaying characteristics of the ‘enclave’ type of non-hierarchical network. They are hybrids of the mandated and natural network forms. In the short term, at member level, both networks were striving to create connectivity and collaboration of members. Over the short to medium term, at network level, both networks applied multi-disciplinary engagement in successfully developing models of care as key outputs, and disseminating information to stakeholders. In the long term, at both community and network levels, stakeholders would measure effectiveness by the broader statewide influence of the network in changing and improving practice. At community level, in the long term, stakeholders acknowledged both networks had raised the profile, and provided a ‘voice’ for musculoskeletal conditions, evidencing some progress with implementation of the network mission while pursuing additional implementation strategies. Conclusions: This research sheds light on stakeholders’ perceptions of assessing clinical network effectiveness at community, network, and member levels during the network’s timeline, and on the role of networks and their contribution. Overall, stakeholders reported positive momentum and useful progress in network growth and development and saw their networks as providing valuable mechanisms for meeting instrumental goals and pursuing collaborative interests. Network forms can prove their utility in addressing ‘wicked problems,’ and these Australian clinical networks present a practical approach to the difficult issue of clinician engagement in state-level implementation of best practice for improving patient care and outcomes. ",
author = "Frances Cunningham and Geetha Ranmuthugala and Johanna Westbrook and Jeffrey Braithwaite",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1186/1748-5908-7-108",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "1--13",
journal = "Implementation Science",
issn = "1748-5908",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

Net benefits : Assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods. / Cunningham, Frances; Ranmuthugala, Geetha; Westbrook, Johanna; Braithwaite, Jeffrey.

In: Implementation Science, Vol. 7, 108, 2012, p. 1-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Net benefits

T2 - Assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods

AU - Cunningham, Frances

AU - Ranmuthugala, Geetha

AU - Westbrook, Johanna

AU - Braithwaite, Jeffrey

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Background: In the 21st century, government and industry are supplementing hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization with network forms, compatible with principles of devolved governance and decentralization of services. Clinical networks are employed as a key health policy approach to engage clinicians in improving patient care in Australia. With significant investment in such networks in Australia and internationally, it is important to assess their effectiveness and sustainability as implementation mechanisms. Methods: In two purposively selected, musculoskeletal clinical networks, members and stakeholders were interviewed to ascertain their perceptions regarding key factors relating to network effectiveness and sustainability. We adopted a three-level approach to evaluating network effectiveness: at the community, network, and member levels, across the network lifecycle. Results: Both networks studied are advisory networks displaying characteristics of the ‘enclave’ type of non-hierarchical network. They are hybrids of the mandated and natural network forms. In the short term, at member level, both networks were striving to create connectivity and collaboration of members. Over the short to medium term, at network level, both networks applied multi-disciplinary engagement in successfully developing models of care as key outputs, and disseminating information to stakeholders. In the long term, at both community and network levels, stakeholders would measure effectiveness by the broader statewide influence of the network in changing and improving practice. At community level, in the long term, stakeholders acknowledged both networks had raised the profile, and provided a ‘voice’ for musculoskeletal conditions, evidencing some progress with implementation of the network mission while pursuing additional implementation strategies. Conclusions: This research sheds light on stakeholders’ perceptions of assessing clinical network effectiveness at community, network, and member levels during the network’s timeline, and on the role of networks and their contribution. Overall, stakeholders reported positive momentum and useful progress in network growth and development and saw their networks as providing valuable mechanisms for meeting instrumental goals and pursuing collaborative interests. Network forms can prove their utility in addressing ‘wicked problems,’ and these Australian clinical networks present a practical approach to the difficult issue of clinician engagement in state-level implementation of best practice for improving patient care and outcomes. 

AB - Background: In the 21st century, government and industry are supplementing hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization with network forms, compatible with principles of devolved governance and decentralization of services. Clinical networks are employed as a key health policy approach to engage clinicians in improving patient care in Australia. With significant investment in such networks in Australia and internationally, it is important to assess their effectiveness and sustainability as implementation mechanisms. Methods: In two purposively selected, musculoskeletal clinical networks, members and stakeholders were interviewed to ascertain their perceptions regarding key factors relating to network effectiveness and sustainability. We adopted a three-level approach to evaluating network effectiveness: at the community, network, and member levels, across the network lifecycle. Results: Both networks studied are advisory networks displaying characteristics of the ‘enclave’ type of non-hierarchical network. They are hybrids of the mandated and natural network forms. In the short term, at member level, both networks were striving to create connectivity and collaboration of members. Over the short to medium term, at network level, both networks applied multi-disciplinary engagement in successfully developing models of care as key outputs, and disseminating information to stakeholders. In the long term, at both community and network levels, stakeholders would measure effectiveness by the broader statewide influence of the network in changing and improving practice. At community level, in the long term, stakeholders acknowledged both networks had raised the profile, and provided a ‘voice’ for musculoskeletal conditions, evidencing some progress with implementation of the network mission while pursuing additional implementation strategies. Conclusions: This research sheds light on stakeholders’ perceptions of assessing clinical network effectiveness at community, network, and member levels during the network’s timeline, and on the role of networks and their contribution. Overall, stakeholders reported positive momentum and useful progress in network growth and development and saw their networks as providing valuable mechanisms for meeting instrumental goals and pursuing collaborative interests. Network forms can prove their utility in addressing ‘wicked problems,’ and these Australian clinical networks present a practical approach to the difficult issue of clinician engagement in state-level implementation of best practice for improving patient care and outcomes. 

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868258285&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1748-5908-7-108

DO - 10.1186/1748-5908-7-108

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 13

JO - Implementation Science

JF - Implementation Science

SN - 1748-5908

M1 - 108

ER -