Managing death: navigating divergent logics in end-of-life care.

Delivery of end-of-life care has gained prominence in the UK, driven by a focus upon the importance of patient choice. In practice choice is influenced by several factors, including the guidance and conduct of healthcare professionals, their different understandings of what constitutes 'a good death', and contested ideas of who is best placed to deliver this. We argue that the attempt to elicit and respond to patient choice is shaped in practice by a struggle between distinct 'institutional logics'. Drawing on qualitative data from a two-part study, we examine the tensions between different professional and organisational logics in the delivery of end-of-life care. Three broad clusters of logics are identified: finance, patient choice and professional authority. We find that the logic of finance shapes the meaning and practice of 'choice', intersecting with the logic of professional authority in order to shape choices that are in the 'best interest' of the patient. Different groups might be able to draw upon alternative forms of professionalism, and through these enact different versions of choice. However, this can resemble a struggle for ownership of patients at the end of life, and therefore, reinforce a conventional script of professional authority.

Implementing disruptive technological change in UK healthcare: exploring development of a smart phone app for remote patient monitoring as a boundary object using qualitative methods.

PURPOSE: Developing technological innovations in healthcare is made complex and difficult due to effects upon the practices of professional, managerial and other stakeholders. Drawing upon the concept of boundary object, this paper explores the challenges of achieving effective collaboration in the development and use of a novel healthcare innovation in the English healthcare system. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A case study is presented of the development and implementation of a smart phone application (app) for use by rheumatoid arthritis patients. Over a two-year period (2015-2017), qualitative data from recorded clinical consultations (n = 17), semi-structured interviews (n = 63) and two focus groups (n = 13) were obtained from participants involved in the app's development and use (clinicians, patients, researchers, practitioners, IT specialists and managers). FINDINGS: The case focuses on the use of the app and its outputs as a system of inter-connected boundary objects. The analysis highlights the challenges overcome in the innovation's development and how knowledge sharing between patients and clinicians was enhanced, altering the nature of the clinical consultation. It also shows how conditions surrounding the innovation both enabled its development and inhibited its wider scale-up. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: By recognizing that technological artefacts can simultaneously enable and inhibit collaboration, this paper highlights the need to overcome tensions between the transformative capability of such healthcare innovations and the inhibiting effects simultaneously created on change at a wider system level.

'Best practice' development and transfer in the NHS: the importance of process as well as product knowledge.

A core prescription from the knowledge management movement is that the successful management of organizational knowledge will prevent firms from 'reinventing the wheel', in particular through the transfer of 'best practices'. Our findings challenge this logic. They suggest instead that knowledge is emergent and enacted in practice, and that normally those involved in a given practice have only a partial understanding of the overall practice. Generating knowledge about current practice is therefore a precursor to changing that practice. In this sense, knowledge transfer does not occur independently of or in sequence to knowledge generation, but instead the process of knowledge generation and its transfer are inexorably intertwined. Thus, rather than transferring 'product' knowledge about the new 'best practice' per se, our analysis suggests that it is more useful to transfer 'process' knowledge about effective ways to generate the knowledge of existing practice, which is the essential starting point for attempts to change that practice.