Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resultaten van 98 kleinschalige innovatieprojecten in de langdurige zorg

  • Published:
Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen Aims and scope

Het programma ‘kleine innovatieprojecten’, onderdeel van het nationaal verbeterprogramma Zorg voor Beter, beoogt de arbeidsproductiviteit in de langdurige zorg te verhogen met minimaal het behoud van kwaliteit van zorg en werk. Dit onderzoek evalueert in hoeverre de 98 uitgevoerde innovatieprojecten resultaten hebben laten zien in termen van arbeidsproductiviteit, subjectieve effectiviteit en borging en welke context- en projectfactoren hierbij een rol spelen. Het beeld over de kleine innovatieprojecten is over het algemeen positief: met een relatief kleine stimuleringssubsidie hebben de projecten waarin het gelukt is de arbeidsproductiviteit te meten (slechts 37,8%), forse verbeteringen in de productiviteit bereikt. Het type leiderschap van de projectleider blijkt een belangrijke rol te spelen in zowel de arbeidsproductiviteit, de subjectieve effectiviteit als het vasthouden van de innovatie. Daarnaast is het belangrijk dat de voortgang van het project wordt gemeten, dat de mate van innovativiteit van de organisatie hoog is en dat het projectteam voldoende ondersteuning vanuit de organisatie ontvangt. Deze studie heeft laten zien dat verschillende factoren op meerdere niveaus een rol spelen bij het verbeteren van de arbeidsproductiviteit, subjectieve effectiviteit en borging en dat deze niet voor elk uitkomstmaat hetzelfde zijn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatuur

  1. Putters K, Breejen E den, Frissen PHA. De winst van zorgvernieuwing. Assen: van Gorcum, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ZIP. Zorg voor mensen, mensen voor de zorg: Arbeidsmarktbeleid voor de zorgsector richting 2025. PLAATS: ZIP, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  3. CPB. Arbeidsaanbod en gewerkte uren tot 2025: Een beleidsneutraal scenario. Den Haag: Centraal Planbureau, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Westert GP, Berg MJvd, Koolman X, Verkleij H. Zorgbalans 2008: de prestaties van de Nederlandse gezondheidszorg. Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in health service organizations: a systematic literature review. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Putters K, Ribeiro R, Dijkshoorn A. Passende prikkels: Een studie over innovatie en productiviteit in de AWBZ sectoren. In: Luijkx K, Putters K, Roo A (red). Verhogen van arbeidsproductiviteit in de zorgsector: verkenning van mogelijkheden en beperkingen. Tilburg: Tranzo, CMDZ, Swoog, 2005.

  7. RVZ. Arbeidsmarkt en zorgvraag. Zoetermeer: Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  8. ZonMw. Zorg voor Beter - Invoeren van Innovaties in de Care: programmabeschrijving & stand van zaken. Den Haag: ZonMw, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gopalakrishnan S. Unraveling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. J High Technol Management Res 2000;11:137–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dückers MLA. Changing hospital care evaluation of a multilayered organisational development and quality improvement programme. Utrecht: Nivel, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kaluzny A, Hernandez JB. Organisational change and innovation. In: Shortell SM, Kaluzny Ae (eds). Health Care Management: a Text in Organisational Theory and Behaviour. New York: John Wiley, 1998.

  12. Hage J, Aiken M. Social change in complex organizations. New York: Random House, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Buchanan D, Fitzgerald L, Ketley D et al. No going back: A review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. Int J Management Rev 2005;7:189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Strating M, Zuiderent-Jerak T, Nieboer A, Bal R. Evaluating the Care for Better collaborative. Results of the first year of evaluation. PLAATS: UITGEVER, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cretin S, Shortell SM, Keeler EB. An evaluation of collaborative interventions to improve chronic illness care. Framework and study design. Eval.Rev 2004;28:28–51.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Whyte WF. Social theory for action: How individuals and organizations learn to change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jansen JJP, van de Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Ambidexterity: The Impact of Environmental and Organizational Antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Rev 2005;57:351–63.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Øvretveit J. Review of Research on Sustaining and Spreading Quality and Safety Improvement. Stockholm/The Hague: Karonlinska Institute MMC, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Management J 2004;47:209–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Benner MJ, Tushman ML. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Management Rev 2003;28:238–56.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tushman M, O'Reilly C. Evolution and Revolution: Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation and Change. Calif Management Rev 1996;38:8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson N, Dreu CKWd, Nijstad BA. The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. J Organizat Behavior 2004;25:147–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16:107–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Damanpour F. Organizational size and innovation. Organizat Studies 1992;13:375–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Damanpour F. Organizational Innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Management J 1991;48:135–45.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shortell SM, Marsteller JA, Lin M et al. The role of perceived team effectiveness in improving chronic illness care. Med Care 2004;42:1040–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Boon CT. HRM and Fit: Survival of the fittest!? Rotterdam: ERIM PhD Series Research in Management, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Datta DK, Guthrie JP, Wright PM. Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Acad Management J 2005;48:135–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Koch MJ, McGrath RG. Improving labor productivity: Human resource management policies do matter. Strat Management J 1996;17:335–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Guest DE, Michie J, Conway N, Sheehan M. Human resource management and corporate performance in the UK. Brit J Ind Relations 2003;41:291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Caldwell DF, O'Reilly CA. The Determinants of Team-Based Innovation in Organizations: The Role of Social Influence. Small Group Res 2003;34:497–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ferlie EB, Shortell SM. Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. Milbank Quart 2001;79:281–315.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Burningham C, West A. Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Res 1995;26:106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Downs GW, Mohr LB. Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Adminis Science Quart 1976;21:700–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rowe LA, Boise WB. Organizational innovation: Current research and evolving concepts. Public Administ Rev 1974;34: 284–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Knight KE. A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. J Business 1967;40:478–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schreirer MA. Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. Am J Evaluation 2005;26:320–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mills PD, Weeks WB. Characteristics of successful quality improvement teams: lessons from five collaborative projects in the VHA. Joint Commission J Quality Safety 2004;30:152–62.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gustafson DH, Sainfort F, Eichler M, Adams L, Bisognano M, Steudel H. Developing and testing a model to predict outcomes of organizational change. Health Serv Res 2003;38:751–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Øvretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, Cretin S, Gustafson D, McInnes K, et al. Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Safety Health Care 2002;11:345–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stjernberg T, Philips A. Organizational innovations in a longterm perspective: Legitimacy and souls-of-fire as critical factors of change and viability. Human Rel 1993;46:1193–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Meyer AD, Goes JB. Organizational assimilation of innovations: a multilevel contextual analysis. Acad Management J 1988;31: 897–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lowe KB, Kroeck KG, Sivasubramaniam N. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic review of the mlq literature. Leadership Quart 1996;7: 385–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tichy NM, Devanna MA. The Transformational Leader. PLAATS: UITGEVER, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hartog DN den, Muijen JJ van, Koopman PL. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. J Occup Organ Psychol1997;70:19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bass BM. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Slaghuis SS, Nieboer AP, Strating M, Bal R. Measuring and monitoring the improvement process for sustainability of change in healthcare practices. (submitted).

  49. Buchanan DA, Fitzgerald L, Ketley D. The sustainability and spread of organizational change: modernizing healthcare. Oxon: Routledge, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lemieux-Charles L, Murray M, Baker GR, Barnsley J, Tasa K, Ibrahim SA. The effects of quality improvement practives on team effectiveness: a mediational model. J Organizat Behavior 2002;23:533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Slaghuis SS, Strating M, Bal R, Nieboer AP. Beyond the frontiers of effectiveness? The development of a measurement instrument for sustainability of changed work practices. (submitted).

  52. Jansen JJP, Bosch,F. A. J. van den, Volberda HW. Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Management Science 2006;52:1661–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Aiken M, Hage J. The organic organization and innovation. TIJDSCHRIFT?? 1971;5:63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shortell SM, Jones RH, Rademaker AW, Gillies RR, Dranove DS, Hughes EFX, et al. Assessing the impact of total quality management and organizational culture on multiple outcomes of care for coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients. Med Care 2000;38:207–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. RAND. Improving Chronic Ilness Care Evaluation (ICICE). PLAATS: RAND, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Strating MMH, Nieboer AP. Psychometric test of the Team Climate Inventory-short version investigated in Dutch quality improvement teams. BMC Health Serv Res 2009;9:126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Vos L, Dückers M, Wagner C. Evaluatie Sneller Beter pijler 3: resultaten van een verbeterprogramma voor ziekenhuizen. PLAATS: UITGEVER, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schouten LM. Quality improvement collaboratives. Cost-effectiveness and determinants of success. Proefschrift, Nijmegen: Radboud Universitet,2010.

    Google Scholar 

  59. TNO. Kosten en baten van innovaties bepalen. zie: www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context=thema&content=inno_case&laag1=891&laag]2=902&item_id=656&Taal=1.

  60. ZonMw. Zorg voor Beter Invoeren van Innovaties in de Care: programmabeschrijving en stand van zaken. Den Haag: ZonMw, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituut Beleid & Management Gezondheidszorg (iBMG), Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Marloes van Grotel, Mathilde M. H. Strating & Anna P. Nieboer

  2. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (iBMG), Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3062, The Netherlands

    Anna P. Nieboer

Authors
  1. Marloes van Grotel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathilde M. H. Strating
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna P. Nieboer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Grotel, M., Strating, M.M.H. & Nieboer, A.P. Resultaten van 98 kleinschalige innovatieprojecten in de langdurige zorg. Tijds. gezondheids.wetenschappen 89, 330–339 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-011-0107-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-011-0107-0

Trefwoorden:

Search

Navigation