RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 An Analysis of Features of Respiratory Therapy Departments That Are Avid For Change
JF Respiratory Care
FD American Association for Respiratory Care
SP 871
OP 884
VO 53
IS 7
A1 Stoller, James K
A1 Kester, Lucy
A1 Roberts, Vincent T
A1 Orens, Douglas K
A1 Babic, Mark D
A1 Lemin, Martha E
A1 Hoisington, Edward R
A1 Dolgan, Colleen M
A1 Cohen, Harlow B
A1 Chatburn, Robert L
YR 2008
UL http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/53/7/871.abstract
AB BACKGROUND: Models of organizational change-readiness have been developed, but little attention has been given to features of change-avid health-care institutions, and, to our knowledge, no attention has been given to features of change-avid respiratory therapy (RT) departments. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory study to compare RT departments we deemed change-avid or non-change-avid, to identify differentiating characteristics. Our assessments regarding change-readiness and avidity were based on structured, in-person interviews of the technical directors and/or medical directors of 8 RT departments. Based on a priori criteria, 4 of the 8 RT departments were deemed change-avid, based on the presence of ≥ 2 of the following 3 criteria: (1) uses a management information system, (2) uses a comprehensive RT protocol program, (3) uses noninvasive ventilation in > 20% of patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Our ratings of the departments were based on 2 scales: one from Integrated Organizational Development Inc, and the 8-stage change model of Kotter. RESULTS: The ratings of the 4 change-avid departments differed significantly from those of the 4 non-change-avid departments, on both the Integrated Organizational Development Inc scale and the Kotter scale. We identified 11 highly desired features of a change-avid RT department: a close working relationship between the medical director and the RT staff; a strong and supportive hospital “champion” for change; using data to define problems and measure the effectiveness of solutions; using redundant types of communication; recognizing resistance and minimizing obstacles to change; being willing to tackle tough issues; maintaining a culture of ongoing education; consistently rewarding change-avid behavior; fostering ownership for change and involving stakeholders; attending to RT leadership succession planning; and having and communicating a vision for the department. CONCLUSIONS: In this first exploratory study we found that change-avid RT departments can be differentiated from non-change-avid RT departments with available assessment tools. Highly desired features of a change-avid RT department were identified but require further study, as does the relationship between change-avidity and clinical outcomes.