Monique W. van Den Hoed

Background: Innovation in long-term care for older adults is essential to manage challenges such as a growing demand and workforce shortages. Organizations with higher innovation readiness are more likely to adopt and sustain innovations effectively. However, an approach indicating the innovation readiness of long-term care organizations for older adults is lacking. To address this, the Maastricht Innovation Readiness Approach (MIRA) was developed to (1) increase understanding about innovation readiness, (2) facilitate the organization's self-assessment of innovation readiness, and (3) inspire the organizational conversation on how to become better at innovating. Objective: The aim of this work was to examine the feasibility of MIRA and explore whether it could be successfully applied in long-term care practice. Methods: MIRA consists of a questionnaire and a consensus meeting. To evaluate the MIRA approach, a mixed-method cross-sectional feasibility study was conducted in 10 Dutch long-term care organizations. The study evaluated scores on the MIRA Questionnaire, assessed its intrarater reliability, and examined the feasibility of both the MIRA Questionnaire and the MIRA Consensus meeting. Professionals (involved in innovation) were asked to (1) complete the MIRA Questionnaire and additional closed-ended questions about its feasibility twice online (1-month interval), (2) participate in the Consensus meeting and verbally answer open questions, and (3) complete a questionnaire directly following the consensus meeting on its feasibility. Results: In total, 173 participants completed the MIRA Questionnaire at t 1 (#128 at t 2); 127 participants attended the MIRA Consensus meeting ( t 1). The mean perceived innovation readiness score was 6.6 (scale 1–10). Intrarater reliability of the MIRA Questionnaire was good (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.75). Participants evaluated MIRA as acceptable, suitable, and valuable: 88% indicated that MIRA provided insight into their organization's innovation readiness, and 84% would recommend it to other organizations. Interestingly, participants suggested annual use of MIRA. Conclusion: MIRA is a feasible approach to assess innovation readiness in long-term care. It enhances internal awareness, supports group reflection across roles and disciplines, and may support structured progress in innovation readiness. However, it remains unclear whether conducting MIRA improves innovation readiness. Longitudinal studies are needed to follow organizations as they implement steps to improve innovation readiness and to explore how these contribute to succesful innovation outcomes.

Background: The scarcity of resources in long-term care demands more than ever that organizations in this sector are prepared for innovation to ensure affordable access to care for older adults. Organizations that are innovation ready are more capable of implementing innovations. Therefore, a better understanding of how stakeholders view innovation readiness in long-term care can provide actionable strategies to enhance their innovative capacities. ‘Innovation readiness’ indicates the level of maturity of an organization to succeed in any type of innovation. Our study explored perspectives among stakeholders on what they consider important for organizations in long-term care for older adults to be innovation ready. Methods: Q-methodology, a mixed-methods approach, was used to investigate the perspectives of 30 stakeholders connected to long-term care for older adults in the Netherlands: academics, (top)management, innovation managers, client representatives, staff, and consultants. Stakeholders were asked to rank 36 statements on innovation readiness on importance. Statements were extracted from literature research and qualitative interviews. Thereafter in the post-interviews stakeholders explained their ranking and reflected on the statements. By-person factor analysis was used to identify clusters in the ranking data. Together with the qualitative data from follow-up interviews, these clusters were interpreted and described as perspectives of the stakeholders. Results: Four distinct perspectives were identified on what they consider important for innovation readiness in long-term care: (1) ‘supportive role of management’ (2) ‘participation of the client (system) and employees’ (3) ‘setting the course and creating conditions’ and (4) ‘structuring decision-making, roles and responsibilities’. The 36 statements represented a complete overview of innovation readiness factors. No additional innovation factors to those previously identified in the literature emerged from the interviews. Conclusions: Stakeholders agree that all factors contributing to innovation readiness of long-term care organizations for older adults are accounted for. The variety of perspectives on what is most important shows there is no agreement among stakeholders about a fixed route toward innovation readiness. However, stakeholders suggested a temporal order of the innovation readiness factors, preferably starting with formulating the innovation ambition. This study’s results could contribute to developing an assessment tool to deliver a structured approach for managers to assess the innovation readiness of their organization. Registration: The study received ethical approval on April 13, 2022 from the Medical Ethics Board of Zuyderland Medical Center in the Netherlands with the number METCZ20220036.

Background: Increasing innovation readiness of healthcare organizations is necessary to meet upcoming challenges, including population aging, staff shortages and reduced funding. Health care organizations differ in the extent to which they are innovation ready. This review aims to clarify the concept of innovation readiness and identify which factors contribute to innovation readiness in health care organizations.Methods: A scoping review was conducted based on the framework from Arksey and O’Malley. PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for studies that (a) aimed to contribute to scientific knowledge about innovation readiness of health care organizations, (b) were peer-reviewed, (c) reported empirical data and (d) were written in English, Dutch or German. Factors researched in the included studies were bundled into 4 overarching main factors and 10 sub-factors.Results: Of the 6,208 studies identified, 44 were included. The majority (n = 36) of the studies had been conducted since 2011 and almost half of the studies (n = 19) were performed in hospitals. Of the 44 studies, 21 researched factors contributing to innovation readiness in the implementation stage of the innovation process. The authors used a variety of words and descriptions addressing innovation readiness, with hardly any theoretical frameworks for innovation readiness presented. Four main factors and 10 sub-factors contributing to the innovation readiness of health care organizations were summarized: strategic course for innovation, climate for innovation, leadership for innovation and commitment to innovation. Climate for innovation (n = 16) was studied the most and individual commitment to innovation (n = 6) was the least studied.Conclusion: Our study identified four main factors contributing to the innovation readiness of health care organizations. Research into innovation readiness of health care organizations is a rather new field. Future research could be directed towards defining the concept of innovation readiness and the development of a framework for innovation readiness. More understanding of the interplay of factors contributing to innovation readiness in all stages of the innovation process and in diverse health care settings can support health care managers to structurally embed innovation. This review contributes to the first stage of theory building on factors contributing to innovation readiness of health care organizations.