Beyond Received Wisdom and Authorised Accounts: What Knowledge Is Needed to Avoid Repeating History?; Comment on “‘Attending to History’ in Major System Change in Healthcare in England: Specialist Cancer Surgery Service Reconfiguration”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Abstract

Perry and colleagues’ study of a programme to reconfigure cancer surgery provision in Greater Manchester highlights the importance of accounting for history in making successful change. In this short commentary, I expand on some of Perry and colleagues’ key findings. I note the way in which those leading change in Greater Manchester combined formal expertise in change management with sensitivity to local context, enhancing their approach to change through attention to details around relationships, events and assumptions that might otherwise have derailed the process. I identify lessons for others in how best to account for history in leading change, highlighting in particular the need to attempt to access and understand forms of history that may be suppressed, difficult-to-articulate, or otherwise marginalised.

Keywords

References

  1. Peters BG, Nagel ML. Zombie Ideas: Why Failed Policy Ideas Persist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020. doi:1017/9781108921312
  2. Alderwick H. Health policy priorities for the next prime minister. BMJ. 2022;378:o1726. doi:1136/bmj.o1726
  3. Powell M, Mannion R. “Groundhog Day”: the Coalition government’s quality and safety reforms. In: Exworthy M, Mannion R, Powell M, eds. Dismantling the NHS? Evaluating the Impact of Health Reforms. Bristol: Policy Press; 2016. p. 323-342.
  4. Perry C, Boaden RJ, Black GB, et al. "Attending to history" in major system change in healthcare in England: specialist cancer surgery service reconfiguration. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6389
  5. Suddaby R, Foster WM. History and organizational change. J Manage. 2017;43(1):19-38. doi:1177/0149206316675031
  6. Orwell G. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg; 1949.
  7. Royal College of Surgeons. Position Statement: Reconfiguration of Surgical Services. London: RCS; 2018. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/rcs/about-rcs/government-relations-consultation/rcs-position-paper-on-reconfiguration-september-2018-final.pdf.
  8. Haughton G, Deas I, Hincks S, Ward K. Mythic Manchester: Devo Manc, the northern powerhouse and rebalancing the English economy. Camb J Reg Econ Soc. 2016;9(2):355-370. doi:1093/cjres/rsw004
  9. NHS England. Five Year Forward View. London: Department of Health; 2014. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf.
  10. Walshe K, Lorne C, Coleman A, McDonald R, Turner A. Devolving Health and Social Care: Learning from Greater Manchester. Manchester: Alliance Manchester Business School; 2018. https://www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk/media/ambs/content-assets/documents/news/devolving-health-and-social-care-learning-from-greater-manchester.pdf.
  11. Kirkpatrick I, Sturdy AJ, Alvarado NR, Blanco-Oliver A, Veronesi G. The impact of management consultants on public service efficiency. Policy Polit. 2019;47(1):77-95. doi:1332/030557318x15167881150799
  12. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72. doi:1136/bmj.312.7023.71
  13. Schultze U, Stabell C. Knowing what you don’t know? Discourses and contradictions in knowledge management research. J Manag Stud. 2004;41(4):549-73. doi:1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00444.x
  14. Swan J, Scarbrough H. Knowledge management: concepts and controversies. J Manag Stud. 2001;38(7):913-21. doi:1111/1467-6486.00265
  15. Martin GP, McKee L, Dixon-Woods M. Beyond metrics? Utilizing 'soft intelligence' for healthcare quality and safety. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:19-26. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.027

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 August 2022
  • Revise Date: 21 November 2022
  • Accept Date: 03 December 2022
  • First Publish Date: 04 December 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics