CROSS-SECTOR COMMUNICATION
However, following its abolishment in 2004, these knowledge dissemination mechanisms were essentially lost.
Future studies
The NHS is in the midst of moving towards a more regionally-focused ICS model, which is intended to boost collaboration, thus hopefully overcoming many of the identified organisational barriers to effective knowledge-sharing. However, the identified barriers relating to source and recipient, as well as the transferred knowledge, will likely still prevent knowledge-sharing processes from reaching their full potential. This project will therefore involve two research phases to support the development of enhanced knowledge-sharing processes among NHS EFM departments. These phases are guided by the following question: ‘What knowledge types are relevant to EFM staff, and through which channels are they most effectively shared?’
Firstly (Fig 7), a case study in multiple NHS Trusts will investigate the flow of information related to medical gas pipeline systems, and specifically medical oxygen, through the NHS EFM system levels. In this study, particular attention will be paid to the characteristics of different pieces of information to uncover and differentiate between distinct knowledge types. As shown in Figure 8, knowledge can be classified in different dimensions with multiple characteristics. For example, the maximum throughput of a specific bulk oxygen evaporator type can be classified as know-what (factual knowledge). It is usually detailed in the device manual (documented), is globally true for that device model (together with the corresponding formula for throughput capacity changes at different temperatures), is known by specific engineers or technicians (individual), and is durable. By investigating and classifying the flow behaviour of sets of information with diverse knowledge characteristics, the suitability of different channels can be investigated.
Following the completion of the aforementioned case study, a widely distributed Delphi-technique study will collect quantitative data to seek consensus on the most suitable communication channels for different types of knowledge, and the most common barriers. A regionally and organisationally diverse set of EFM participants will be targeted to enable an effective consensus to be found, as well as be able to identify regional and structural variations of knowledge- sharing behaviours. Practitioners on all levels of the NHS EFM system are invited to participate in the study, which will entail 2-3 rounds of online questionnaires.
n If you would like more information about the research results, or are interested in participating in the future research stages, please contact Carl-Magnus von Behr via email at:
cmv30@cam.ac.uk.
References 1 Health Building Note 00-07: Planning for a resilient healthcare estate. Department of Health, 2014.
2 Wiig S, Aase K, Billett S et al. Defining the boundaries and operational concepts of resilience in the resilience in healthcare research program. BMC Health Serv Res 2020; 20 (1): 330. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05224-3.
3 A Healthcare Engineering Roadmap for Delivering Net Zero Carbon. IHEEM, IFHE, IFHE-EU, Carbon & Energy Fund, NHS Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and HEFMA, March 2021.
4 Duchek S. Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. Business Research 2020; 13 (1): 215–46.
doi: 10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7.
5 Oxygen issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Independent report by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch I2020/022. June 2021.
6 NHS England. Building a knowledge enabled NHS for the future, 2015.
7 Waring J, Currie G, Crompton A, Bishop S. An exploratory study of knowledge brokering in hospital settings: Facilitating knowledge sharing and learning for patient safety? Soc Sci Med 2013; 98: 79–86. doi: 10.1016/
j.socscimed.2013.08.037.
8 Lin C, Tan B, Chang S. An exploratory model of knowledge flow barriers within healthcare organizations. Information and Management 2008; 45 (5): 331–9. doi: 10.1016/
j.im.2008.03.003.
9 BS ISO 20401:2018: Knowledge management systems – Requirements. British Standards Institute London, 2018.
10 May D. Facilities management in the NHS: overlapping authority and demarcation disputes. Facilities 2018; 37 (3/4). doi: 10.1108/f-02-2018-0035.
Carl-Magnus von Behr
Carl-Magnus von Behr is a PhD researcher at the Institute for Manufacturing (IfM), University of Cambridge. His research investigates how to design hospital estates and facilities management services to face internal and external changes in a resilient and sustainable manner. Prior to starting his PhD, he obtained an
M.Phil. in Industrial Systems, Manufacture and Management from the University of Cambridge, and a BSc. in Industrial Engineering and Management from the Technical University Berlin in Germany.
Professor Tim Minshall
Professor Tim Minshall is the inaugural Dr John C Taylor Professor of Innovation at the University of Cambridge, and head of the Institute for Manufacturing (IfM) and the IfM’s Centre for Technology Management (CTM). He is an expert on open innovation, and his research is focused on the links between manufacturing, innovation, and skills, with a key area of his current research being the application of innovation management techniques to improve healthcare outcomes.
John Clarkson
John Clarkson is Professor of Engineering Design at the University of Cambridge, and of Healthcare Systems at Delft University of Technology. He leads the Healthcare Design Group at the Cambridge Engineering Design Centre, which researches the role of systems thinking in the NHS for the delivery of safe, effective, and affordable care. He is a specialist in engineering design, and particularly in the development of design methodologies to address specific design issues such as change management, inclusive design, and systems leadership.
hej November 2021 Health Estate Journal 61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
