IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i12p7253-d838090.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prior to Implementation of Digital Pathology—Assessment of Expectations among Staff by Means of Normalization Process Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Minne L. N. Mikkelsen

    (CIMT—Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark
    Department of Pathology, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 6200 Aabenraa, Denmark
    Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark)

  • Marianne H. Frederiksen

    (Department of Business and Management, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark)

  • Niels Marcussen

    (Department of Pathology, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 6200 Aabenraa, Denmark)

  • Bethany Williams

    (Department of Histopathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Kristian Kidholm

    (CIMT—Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark)

Abstract

The Region of Southern Denmark is the first in Denmark to implement digital pathology (DIPA), starting at the end of 2020. The DIPA process involves changes in workflow, and the pathologist will have to diagnose based on digital whole slide imaging instead of through the traditional use of the conventional light microscope and glass slides. In addition, in the laboratory, the employees will have to implement one more step to their workflow—scanning of tissue. The aim of our study was to assess the expectations and readiness among employees and management towards the implementation of DIPA, including their thoughts and motivations for starting to use DIPA. We used a mixed-method approach. Based on the findings derived from 18 semi-structured interviews with employees from the region’s departments of pathology, we designed a questionnaire, including questions from the normalization measure development tool. The questionnaires were e-mailed to 181 employees. Of these employees, 131 responded to the survey. Overall, they reported feeling sufficiently tech-savvy to be able to use DIPA, and they had high expectations as well as motivation and readiness for the upcoming changes. However, the employees were skeptical regarding the allocation of resources, and few were aware of reports about the effects of DIPA. Based on the findings, it seems to be important to provide not only a thorough introduction to the new intervention and the changes it will entail, but also to continue to ensure that the staff know how it works and why it is necessary to implement.

Suggested Citation

  • Minne L. N. Mikkelsen & Marianne H. Frederiksen & Niels Marcussen & Bethany Williams & Kristian Kidholm, 2022. "Prior to Implementation of Digital Pathology—Assessment of Expectations among Staff by Means of Normalization Process Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7253-:d:838090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7253/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7253/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Waterman, Robert Jr. & Peters, Thomas J. & Phillips, Julien R., 1980. "Structure is not organization," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 14-26, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cathal M. Brugha, 2001. "Implications from Decision Science for the Systems Development Life Cycle in Information Systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 91-105, March.
    2. Khraisha, Tamer, 2020. "Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and methodological perspectives," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 390-407.
    3. Seogjun Lee & Seung Woon Oh & Kichan Nam, 2016. "Transformational and Transactional Factors for the Successful Implementation of Enterprise Architecture in Public Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Rodriguez, Carlos Adrian, 2016. "Challenges to effectiveness in public health organizations: The case of the Costa Rican Health Ministry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3859-3868.
    5. Jennings, David, 1999. "Corporate planning: post-privatization change in a UK electricity utility," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 223-232, December.
    6. Wasike Shadrack Mayende & Owino Odhiambo Joseph, 2021. "Top Management Team Characteristics, Competitive Environment and Strategy Implementation," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(7), pages 147-147, July.
    7. Miskiewicz, Radoslaw, 2017. "Organisational structure in the progress of integration," MPRA Paper 81767, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2017.
    8. Brugha, Cathal M., 1998. "The structure of adjustment decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 63-76, January.
    9. Martin Jetter & Gerhard Satzger & Andreas Neus, 2009. "Technological Innovation and Its Impact on Business Model, Organization and Corporate Culture – IBM’s Transformation into a Globally Integrated, Service-Oriented Enterprise," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 1(1), pages 37-45, February.
    10. Anastassia Stancheva, 2009. "The Enterprise from Management Point of View: Meta-Analysis (Internal Structure and Behavior)," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 67-112.
    11. Jane Nyokabi Njuguna & Juliana Namada & Maina Muchara, 2019. "Differentiation strategy, firm structure and performance of star rated hotels," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 8(6), pages 08-14, October.
    12. Shteryo Nozharov, 2017. "Efficiency of Public Administration Management in Cultural Heritage Protection," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 2, pages 307-316, June.
    13. Isaac Lemus-Aguilar & Gustavo Morales-Alonso & Andres Ramirez-Portilla & Antonio Hidalgo, 2019. "Sustainable Business Models through the Lens of Organizational Design: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Shteryo Nozharov, 2014. "Model of Effective Management of Bulgarian Public Administration Managing EU Funds," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 4, pages 64-77, December.
    15. Marcos Lima, 2020. "Smarter organizations: insights from a smart city hybrid framework," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1281-1300, December.
    16. Deszczyński, Bartosz & Beręsewicz, Maciej, 2021. "The maturity of relationship management and firm performance – A step toward relationship management middle-range theory," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 358-372.
    17. Young, David W., 2000. "The six levers for managing organizational culture," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 19-28.
    18. Maria Inês Veloso Ferreira & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2011. "Organizational Characteristics and Performance of Export Promotion Agencies: Portugal and Ireland compared," FEP Working Papers 424, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    19. Parker-Priebe, M.J., 2000. "Theory and Practice of Business/IT Organizational Interdependencies," Other publications TiSEM 9740c28e-390b-4247-bc30-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Massimo Egidi, 2014. "The economics of wishful thinking and the adventures of rationality," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 13(1), pages 9-27, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7253-:d:838090. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.