Innovative doctors in Germany: changes through communities of practice

Author:

Bosa Iris M.

Abstract

PurposeThe healthcare sector faces new financial and managerial accountability demands, along with their clinical accountability. Various studies show strong opposition by clinicians to new accountability tools, new structures and new ways of working. Less attention is paid to the innovative roles doctors can play in leading changes that use new managerial tools and techniques. The purpose of this paper is to analyse two original case studies illustrating how general practitioners (GPs) in Germany have led radical change.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws upon original research in Germany to present two case studies using a qualitative method, which are analysed using Glaser and Strauss' conventions of grounded theory, structured by Wenger's communities of practice framework, supporting a comprehensive literature review.FindingsGPs are found to be able to lead radical change in healthcare delivery models and organisation using entrepreneurial talents developed in their practice businesses and to embrace modernising tools and techniques and in the process redefine their identities to include management process in addition to medical competences.Originality/valueThe paper presents two original case studies of radical change leading to an integration of healthcare services in Germany. The approach adopted by the German GPs reveals important general lessons for practitioners, as does the analytical framework employed in the paper.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Health Policy,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)

Reference46 articles.

1. Argyris, C. (1977), “Double loop learning in organisations”, Harvard Business Review, September/October.

2. Audit Commission (1996), What the Doctor Ordered: A Study of GP Fundholders in England and Wales, HMSO, London.

3. Bärnighausen, T. and Sauerborn, R. (2002), “One hundred and eighteen years of the German health insurance system: are there any lessons for middle‐ and low‐income countries?”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 54, pp. 1559‐87.

4. Baumard, P. (1999), Tacit Knowledge in Organizations, Sage, London.

5. Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society, Sage, London.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3