Knowledge Management In A 21st Century Healthcare Organization: The NHS Case Study

The technological development by the beginning of the 21 century, is making it humanly impossible for unaided healthcare professionals to possess all the knowledge needed to deliver medical care with the efficacy and safety made possible by current scientific knowledge. Several healthcare organizations are adopting rigorous methods and technologies for knowledge management (KM) as a potential solution to the knowledge crisis. However, awareness and understanding of such methods are not widespread with critics claiming that these technologies are not designed to be compatible with others neither are they interoperable. This paper describes an effort by the NHS for individuals, organizations and partners (commercial companies supplying services to the NHS) to demonstrate their belief in the importance of improving KM in medicine and show that this can be best achieved through collaboration and consensus. It looks at National Knowledge Service, set up to provide a range of services, through one or more open-access web-sites. There is an asymmetry in most of the discussion of the field. KM, in this paper, is primarily discussed from the point of view of the user of medical knowledge. The motivation is seen to be the enhancement capabilities, and the utilization of knowledge to increase healthcare effectiveness. Keyword: Healthcare Knowledge Management, NHS IS Strategy, Medical Knowledge, Evidence-based Medicine. 1. What Is Knowledge Management? Knowledge management (KM) is widely regarded as the way an organisation can leverage the ‘know-how’ of its employees, trading partners, and outside experts for the benefit of the organization (Choo, 1998; Bellaver & Lusa, 2001; Ackerman et al, 2003). KM is regarded as the essential tool for success in the highly competitive world of the global economy (Ackerman, Pipek & Wulf, 2003) in the 21 century. It is further argued that the management—and with it the sharing—of knowledge, not only enhances the organisation’s ability to compete by increasing the competence of its employees but also enriches the welfare of all those who are able to engage in the process. Advocates of KM fall into two groups: i) Those who focus on technology as the mechanism for managing and sharing knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Bellaver & Lusa, 2001; Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999). ii) Those who place a greater emphasis on human relations, on conversation and on the elicitation of tacit knowledge (Alle, 1999; Disterer, 2001; Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001; Holsapple & Joshi, 2000; Lindsey, 2002).