Implementing Role-Changing Versus Time-Changing Innovations in Health Care

Abstract

Health care organizations often fail in their effort to implement care-improving innovations. This article differentiates role-changing innovations, altering what workers do, from time-changing innovations, altering when tasks are performed or for how long. We examine our hypothesis that the degree to which access to groups that can alter organizational learning—staff, management, and external network—facilitates implementation depends on innovation type. Our longitudinal study using ordinal logistic regression and survey data on 517 hospitals’ implementation of evidence-based practices for treating heart attack confirmed our thesis for factors granting access to each group: improvement team’s representativeness (of affected staff), senior management engagement, and network membership. Although team representativeness and network membership were positively associated with implementing role-changing practices, senior management engagement was not. In contrast, senior management engagement was positively associated with implementing time-changing practices, whereas team representativeness was not, and network membership was not unless there was limited management engagement. These findings advance implementation science by explaining mixed results across past studies: Nature of change for workers alters potential facilitators’ effects on implementation.