Seattle is one of the nation’s most prominent innovation hubs. An overwhelming number of technology firms are either based in Seattle or have branches in Seattle. From Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Uber to Hulu and Adobe, many highly successful tech companies are located in Seattle. As the city continues to grow as a tech mecca, its innovation attitude continues to stretch far beyond e-commerce and software. It is in Seattle where innovation meets healthcare. Many healthcare foundations in Seattle are bucking old approaches to healthcare and innovating healthcare technologies to reshape the health and medical world. The organizations drive transformative innovation to save lives, facilitate research studies, such as cancer research, advance bioscience breakthroughs, and improve physician-patient communication. Due to its innovative attitude and the rich healthcare community, Seattle can be a blueprint for aspiring tech hubs or healthcare organizations across other U.S. cities. This paper’s principal focus is to discuss how the innovative healthcare practices found in Seattle can be diffused into areas outside of Puget Sound. This paper will also delve into discussing the forces supporting innovation and the barriers to innovation.
Healthcare Innovative Practices Found in Seattle
Seattle is considered the “Center of Health Innovation.” The remarkable medical research in Seattle is paving the way to a healthier medical world. From cancer research to healthcare technology innovation, Seattle is home to medical pioneers whose aims are to reshape the health and medical world. An overwhelming number of tech firms based in Seattle are using technology to innovate the health field. This includes organizations like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PATH, Allen Institute, Xealth, and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA). These tech companies have access to world-class human talent, academic institutions, and innovative technologies.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In Seattle, healthcare organizations and tech companies are using technology to innovate the field of cancer. In recent years, this field has seen significant improvements in the effectiveness of surgical procedures, radiation therapy, medical treatments, development of multidisciplinary approaches to care, and the power of information technology (IT) (Gupta et al., 2017; Aapro et al., 2017). In Seattle, the SCCA is the main healthcare organization and tech company driving innovation in the field of cancer. SCCA partners with numerous other tech companies or innovative healthcare organizations based in Seattle, such as Fred Hutching Cancer Research Center, Seattle Children’s Hospital, and UW Medicine, to develop innovative approaches to treatment and clinical trials of cancer. The aim is to improve the quality of life of cancer patients. Through innovations in cancer research, new conventional drugs and immunotherapy have been developed in Seattle, most of which are already utilized in areas outside Puget Sound. For example, innovative healthcare organizations and tech companies in Seattle have developed cellular immunotherapies, such as CAR T-cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. To advance research on cancer and successfully treat this disease, tech companies in Seattle are continuing to accelerate discovery and innovation in the field of cancer.
Another innovation practice in healthcare that has received significant attention even outside of Puget Sound is the use of rapid communication and digital imaging technologies. Since the advent of the Internet, healthcare organizations and tech companies in Seattle have applied many innovative approaches, including robotic surgery and radiology, to diagnose cancer and other chronic illnesses much earlier and treat them successfully. Practices like the use of electronic health records (EHR) systems and telehealth technologies, such as videoconferencing, have facilitated remote consultations, information sharing, rapid communication, and continuous learning and innovation. For example, Xealth, a Seattle-based software company, provides a digital health prescribing platform for healthcare professionals. This platform enables healthcare professionals like nurses and physicians to easily integrate, prescribe, and monitor their patients using digital devices from their EHR workflows. Since the outbreak of Covid-19, healthcare organizations have increasingly adopted digital technologies, such as telehealth technologies, to not only contain the spread of Covid-19 but also to facilitate the delivery of healthcare. Due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and other global health challenges, a rapid pace of technological innovation is required to maintain healthcare delivery and improve patient outcomes.
Seattle is also widely known for advancing bioscience breakthroughs. Allen Institute and SCCA are some Seattle-based bioscience research organizations dedicated to accelerating innovative research on the brain, spinal cord, and cell diseases. These two organizations primarily focus on new treatment options and digital imaging technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerized tomography (CT) scans. For example, this year, scientists at Allen Institute developed a new technique to probe how the immune system changes in patients diagnosed with advanced multiple myeloma (Swanson et al., 2021). The researchers dubbed their technique as TEA-seq (“transcription, epitopes, and accessibility of the DNA”). Innovating new diagnostic procedures can lead to better treatments of diseases.
Diffusing Health Innovative Practices Found in Seattle in Areas Outside of the Puget Sound
Seattle can be a blueprint for healthcare organizations located in other U.S. cities. In other words, the innovative practices found in Seattle can be diffused into areas outside of Puget Sound. To ensure the successful adoption of these practices, various change management models can be used. One such model is the ADKAR model for change management. Jeffrey Hiatt created this model in 2006 (Hiatt, 2006; Hiatt, 2006b; Tang, 2019). Hiatt (2006) defined the ADKAR model as “a goal-oriented change management model that allows change management teams to focus their activities on specific business results” (1). Each of the acronyms in ADKAR represents a goal to reach.
For instance, Awareness is related to the need to ensure all the workforce and stakeholders understand the need for change. D esire is related to the need to appeal to both the logical and emotional side of the change management team involved in the implementation process (Hiatt, 2006b). Knowledge is related to the need to ensure the entire organization understands the need for change and all the steps involved in implementing the change. Ability is related to the actual ability of the change management team to facilitate the change, from the initial phase to the final phase (Hiatt, 2006b). Lastly, Reinforcement to make the change stick is about making the change stick. Figure 1 provides an overview of the model.
Figure 1: ADKAR Change Management Model Overview
Source: Caredda (2020).
By focusing on the goals outlined by the ADKAR model, healthcare organizations outside Puget Sound can successfully implement the innovative practices found in Seattle. To ensure the employees and other organizational stakeholders understand the need for change, the leadership should ensure transparency when communicating the implementation of the innovative practices (Hiatt, 2006b; Tang, 2019). They should be focused on the benefits the proposed changes will bring. This includes expressing the return on investment (ROI) of the change and the pains of the implementation process. The ADKAR model is based on the need to establish trust (Hiatt, 2006; Tang, 2019). By gaining stakeholder trust, healthcare organizations outside Puget Sound can embed change faster and more steadily.
Inspiring the desire to change requires strong leadership. During this phase, it is important to ensure all the organizational stakeholders understand the benefits and relevance of the change (Hiatt, 2006). Besides, the leadership should create an effective feedback loop with the change management team. This will help ensure concerns are raised immediately when implementing innovative practices. Once the change is in place, it is vital to define all the skills and knowledge needed to facilitate the implementation of the change (Hiatt, 2006). The team should be trained appropriately to proceed through the change process.
Once all the skills and knowledge needed have been identified, the change leader should carefully plan the entire training phase. Besides, the change leaders should put in place a performance monitoring approach. This way, the management will be able to monitor the implementation process and its progress from the initial phase to the post-implementation phase (Tang, 2019). The ability to measure the entire change process is crucial for any change management (Hiatt, 2006). Once the healthcare organization has implemented the innovative practice found in Seattle, it should make sure the change sticks. During the reinforcement stage, the management should put measures like appraisals, incentives, and rewards to ensure the change becomes the new norm (Hiatt, 2006). The innovation practice implemented should then be assessed or evaluated periodically. By focusing on the 5 steps discussed above, healthcare organizations outside of Puget Sound can successfully diffuse the innovative practices found in Seattle into their organizational structure.
Factors Supporting Innovation and Barriers
Change is inevitable. Organizations cannot survive over the long term if they cannot reinvent themselves. However, some people often resist change. While it is necessary to implement an organizational change, it is incredibly difficult to lead a change. There are numerous factors that can support or hinder innovation. This section’s principal focus is to discuss the factors that facilitate innovation and the factors that hinder innovation.
There are numerous factors that create a culture of innovation in healthcare organizations. Some of these factors include “management practices that support a culture of innovation, organizational motivation and encouragement, and resourcing” (Center for Creative Leadership, 2020). Creating an innovation culture in a healthcare organization or any other organization comes down to managerial leadership (Dana et al., 2016). Healthcare organizations should have leadership that does not subconsciously sabotage innovation. The leaders should allow freedom and autonomy in the workplace, set clear organizational goals, and create diverse teams (Center for Creative Leadership, 2020). Leaders who value individual contributions and support employees when they come up with innovative ideas often contribute to innovation. Besides, diverse teams are often open to new ideas (Center for Creative Leadership, 2020). This facilitates not only the sharing of innovative ideas but also the implementation of organizational changes.
The primary orientation of a healthcare organization towards innovation is another factor influencing innovation. Organizations should have a culture that encourages innovative mindsets (Dana et al., 2016). Creating an innovative mindset in an organization requires collaboration and communication across silos. Lastly, the availability of resources is another factor that supports innovation or innovative culture. Innovation does not happen in a silo. Resources are required to support innovation. Employees need access to appropriate resources, such as materials, facilities, and information. Leaders ought to understand their role in innovation. They should provide ample resources to support the creation of innovative culture.
However, as stated earlier, it is incredibly difficult to lead a change. The reason why healthcare organizations outside of Puget Sound fail to innovate comes down to fear, lack of leadership, lack of resources/capacity, and lack of urgency ( Hiatt, 2006; Gower, 2015) . One of the main reasons why healthcare organizations do not innovate is fear of failure ( Gower, 2015) . Healthcare organizations within Puget Sound accept failing and consider it vital for learning, development, and progress. Healthcare organizations outside of Puget Sound should embrace this culture to be innovative. Lack of leadership can also impede innovation ( Gower, 2015) . Innovation must be led from the top Gower, 2015) . Often, healthcare organizational leaders, especially those from outside Puget Sound, do not support innovation. Some organizations may have change leaders but lack resources or the capacity to innovate. Other organizations often take a scattergun approach to innovate or under-resourced it. Lastly, lack of urgency is another barrier to innovation. Healthcare organizations outside of Puget Sound are not responding with urgency to change. The organizations focus on the immediate problems, thus hindering innovation. According to Hiatt (2006), other barriers to innovation include not establishing a sense of urgency, not creating a powerful guiding coalition, not communicating vision, and creating obstacles to the new vision. In order to develop and maintain a culture of change, healthcare organization within and outside of Puget Sound should
Conclusion
To sum up, this paper’s principals focus was to discuss the healthcare innovative practices in Seattle and how these practices can be diffused into areas outside of Puget Sound. This paper also delved into discussing the forces that support innovation as well as the barriers to innovation. Seattle is the hub or center of health innovation. The city prides itself in innovating the field of health, from research innovations to technology innovation. Through research innovations, Seattle has made significant advancements in the field of research, such as cancer research. The field of cancer has seen improvements in the following areas: surgical procedures, radiation therapy, medical treatments, development of multidisciplinary approaches to care, and IT. The city has also developed rapid communication and digital imaging technologies. This includes technologies like EHR systems and robotic systems. Another innovative practice found in Seattle relates to the advancement of bioscience. Healthcare organizations in Seattle have developed new treatment options and various digital imaging technologies, such as MRI and CT scans, to advance bioscience breakthroughs. All these innovative practices can be diffused in healthcare organizations located outside of Puget Sound. These organizations can use the ADKAR model for change management to implement these innovative practices.
References
Aapro, M., Astier, A., Audisio, R., Banks, I., Bedossa, P., Brain, E., ... & Naredi, P. (2017). Identifying critical steps towards improved access to innovation in cancer care: a European CanCer Organisation position paper. European Journal of Cancer , 82 , 193-202.
Caredda, S. (2020). Models: the ADKAR change management model. [Online]. Retrieved May 25, 2021, from https://sergiocaredda.eu/organisation/tools/models-the-adkar-change-management-model/
Center for Creative Leadership. (2020). Creating a culture of innovation: focus on these 3 factors. [Online]. Retrieved May 25, 2021, from https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/3-factors-that-drive-or-suppress-innovation/
Dana, B. G., Mukaj, L., & Vishkurti, M. (2016). Creating a model culture of management change. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series , 25 (1), 871-880.
Gower, L. (2015). The ten barriers to innovation. [Online]. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://www.lucidity.org.uk/the-ten-barriers-to-innovation/
Gupta, V., McGunigal, M., Prasad-Hayes, M., Kalir, T., & Liu, J. (2017). Adjuvant radiation therapy is associated with improved overall survival in high-intermediate risk stage I endometrial cancer: A national cancer data base analysis. Gynecologic oncology , 144 (1), 119-124.
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: a model for change in business, government, and our community . Prosci.
Hiatt, J. M. (2006b). The Essence of ADKAR: a model for individual change management. Fort Collins Colorado: Prosci .
Swanson, E., Lord, C., Reading, J., Heubeck, A. T., Genge, P. C., Thomson, Z., ... & Skene, P. J. (2021). Simultaneous trimodal single-cell measurement of transcripts, epitopes, and chromatin accessibility using TEA-seq. Elife , 10 , e63632
Tang, K. N. (2019). Change management. In Leadership and Change Management (pp. 47-55). Springer, Singapore.
