Health care organizations often fail in their effort to implement care-improving innovations. This article differentiates role-changing innovations, altering what workers do, from time-changing innovations, altering when tasks are performed or for how long. We examine our hypothesis that the degree to which access to groups that can alter organizational learning--staff, management, and external network--facilitates implementation depends on innovation type. Our longitudinal study using ordinal logistic regression and survey data on 517 hospitals' implementation of evidence-based practices for treating heart attack confirmed our thesis for factors granting access to each group: improvement team's representativeness (of affected staff), senior management engagement, and network membership. Although team representativeness and network membership were positively associated with implementing role-changing practices, senior management engagement was not. In contrast, senior management engagement was positively associated with implementing time-changing practices, whereas team representativeness was not, and network membership was not unless there was limited management engagement. These findings advance implementation science by explaining mixed results across past studies: Nature of change for workers alters potential facilitators' effects on implementation.
Keywords: frontline staff; hospitals; implementation; networks; organizational change; organizational learning; quality improvement team; roles; senior management.
© The Author(s) 2015.