Table 5.
Results from the Qualitative Interviews: Staff Perceptions about Change
| N of Respondents |
% of Total |
|
|---|---|---|
| Initial Outcomes and Sustainability (N = 37) | ||
| Positive Results | 27 | 73% |
| Negative Results | 4 | 11% |
| Mixed Results | 6 | 16% |
| Impact of the Change Process (N = 37) | ||
| Benefits to: | ||
| Veterans | 26 | 70% |
| Staff | 15 | 41% |
| Organization | 14 | 38% |
| Self | 15 | 41% |
| Negative Consequences for | ||
| Veterans | 1 | 3% |
| Staff | 5 | 14% |
| Organization | 1 | 3% |
| Problem Solving Strategies (N=46) | ||
| Use of Quality Improvement Tools | 35 | 76% |
| Data and Evidences | 22 | 48% |
| PDSA | 18 | 39% |
| Flowcharting | 19 | 41% |
| Strong Communication/Collaboration | 28 | 61% |
| Institutional-Structural Changes | 28 | 61% |
| Positive Leadership | 21 | 46% |
| Learning Organization | 17 | 37% |
| Perspective on Leadership* (N=50) | ||
| Involved, supportive, or inspiring | 30 | 60% |
| Uninvolved or unaware, micromanaging, and\or not supportive | 21 | 42% |
| Thoughts about the Change Process (N = 50) | ||
| Embedded staff resistance (others resisted change) | 26 | 52% |
| Supported and contributed to the change project | 20 | 40% |
| Change fatigue, top down approach or skepticism challenged implementation and sustainability | 18 | 36% |
| I resisted change | 4 | 8% |
| Skeptical of top-down, but favored locally driven, change efforts | 3 | 6% |
*
1 respondent expressed both positive and negative perspectives