International Journal of Integrated Care (Aug 2019)

Change Management and Staff engagement processes. Lessons learned at ACT@Scale Project

  • Núria Rodríguez Valiente,
  • Montse Moharra Frances,
  • Tomàs Salas Fernandez,
  • Cristina Bescos,
  • Helen Schonenberg

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3002
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 4

Abstract

Read online

Increased life expectancy and longevity, and declining birth rate, have led to an ageing Europe.The challenge is how to adapt the growing demand in health services and its sustainability. The main objectives are to gather iterative information from change management and staff engagement processes and to identify good practices in the ACT@Scale programs and regions.Online questionnaires were addressed to program managers and frontline clinical staff.The questionnaires were composed by seven domain: leadership, awareness, motivation, workforce development, psychological ownership and organizational change. Data collection took place from January to June 2017 (first wave) and the second wave will take place during July 2018.A range of descriptive statistics has been produced, to allow a high-level overview of response variability between questions,programmes,and regions;in addition, a qualitative analysis has been performed. In first wave, seventeen program managers answered the survey and in all,173 responses were received from frontline clinical staff (Response index, 36.20%). The global staff engagement average was 3.7(over a value of 5),60% of programs were above the average and 40% were below.In program managers’ responses, the domains identified most positively were: frontline clinical engagement (average 4), the effective communicational processes (average 4) and the staff training (average 4.5).The domains identified below the average were, project success (average 3),addressing organizational and cultural barriers(average 3).Most frontline clinical staff (90%) agreed that coordinated care and telehealth programs benefited patients. Regarding to workforce development, there was not consensus in training, and teaching methods developed, 70% perceived that the training received was not linked to a formal academic award. Second wave results are still pending to be analyzed and compared. Some diverging points of view between program managers and frontline clinical staff have been detected regarding educational methodologies developed.

Keywords