Results
Four themes emerged through the qualitative analysis. Firstly,
professional attitudes to codifying knowledge were not universal
(e.g. characterised by resistance) but differed according to the
context in which each interventionwas applied. Secondly, variation
in perceptions of health care professionals was due partly to the
interventions embodying different professional interests, influencing
how they were received by clinical staff. Thirdly, interprofessional
boundaries and power asymmetries between doctors,
nurses and other professionals were not only a barrier to
sharing tacit knowledge in current practice: they also shaped
processes of knowledge codification. Finally, tacit and codified
knowledge complemented one another with regard to learning
from M&M cases and medication safety, but codification had
limited impact on existing professional boundaries associated with
tacit knowledge use, rather these boundaries were often reproduced
in the codification process.
Results
Four themes emerged through the qualitative analysis. Firstly,
professional attitudes to codifying knowledge were not universal
(e.g. characterised by resistance) but differed according to the
context in which each interventionwas applied. Secondly, variation
in perceptions of health care professionals was due partly to the
interventions embodying different professional interests, influencing
how they were received by clinical staff. Thirdly, interprofessional
boundaries and power asymmetries between doctors,
nurses and other professionals were not only a barrier to
sharing tacit knowledge in current practice: they also shaped
processes of knowledge codification. Finally, tacit and codified
knowledge complemented one another with regard to learning
from M&M cases and medication safety, but codification had
limited impact on existing professional boundaries associated with
tacit knowledge use, rather these boundaries were often reproduced
in the codification process.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..