Premium
Delivering feedback on learning organization characteristics – using a Learning Practice Inventory
Author(s) -
Kelly Diane R.,
Lough Murray,
Rushmer Rosemary,
Wilkinson Joyce E.,
Greig Gail,
Davies Huw T. O.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00746.x
Subject(s) - clarity , process (computing) , best practice , test (biology) , medical education , presentation (obstetrics) , scale (ratio) , quality (philosophy) , medicine , knowledge management , psychology , process management , nursing , computer science , business , paleontology , biochemistry , chemistry , physics , philosophy , management , radiology , epistemology , quantum mechanics , economics , biology , operating system
Rationale, aims and objectives Learning is recognized to be at the heart of the quality improvement process in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the challenge will be how to ensure that learning becomes embedded within the NHS culture. The aim of this study is to identify a robust feedback process and format in which practices could receive data on their responses to a Learning Practice Inventory (a diagnostic instrument designed to identify a practice’s capacity for collective learning and change). Method Five practices volunteered to test the instrument, and it was distributed to all members of the primary care team. A process was worked through to identify different formats for presenting scores within and between practices. The preferred method of data presentation was sought, and an evaluation gathered information on the preferred form of feedback, the usefulness of the data, the clarity of the questions and the level of interest in receiving further information. Results Eighty‐five staff from five practices completed the questionnaire, and 61 individuals completed the evaluation forms. In most cases, there was a spread of scores by staff within practices and across the scale of 1–10. Medians were clustered at the learning practice end for all five practices. However, despite this skew, there were sometimes quite large differences between practices in their median scores. Conclusion Our study suggests that a robust feedback process on collective capacity for learning and change can be identified that is useful and feasible. A key implication is that some form of educational support is required, and this work will take place as part of an ongoing programme of research by the authors.