Knowledge Management in Hospitals.

Review of Literature
Marcin Bobruk1,A,B,C,D,E,F Zbigniew Wiśniewski2,A,B,E,F Andrzej Kot1,B,E
ORCID: 0000-0001-6960-3270 ORCID: 0000-0003-0066-9321 ORCID: 0000-0003-2283-4199
1
Department of Management and Logistics in Health Care, Medical University of Lodz, Poland;
2
Lodz University of Technology, Faculty of Organization and Management, Lodz, Poland

A – research concept and design, B – collection andassembly of data,

C – data analysis and interpre-tation, D – writing the article, E – critical revision of the article,
F – final approval of article

DOI: 10.26399/rmp.v29.3.2023.17/m.bobruk/z.wisniewski/a.kot

ABSTRACT STRESZCZENIE
Knowledge Management in Hospitals. Review of Literature Zarządzanie wiedzą w szpitalach. Przegląd literatury
Bobruk M. , Wiśniewski Z. , Kot A.
1 2 1
Bobruk M.1, Wiśniewski Z.2, Kot A.1
1
Department of Management and Logistics in Health Care, Medical 1
Zakład Zarządzania i Logistyki w Ochronie Zdrowia, Wydział Nauk
University of Lodz, Poland; 2 Lodz University of Technology, Faculty o Zdrowiu Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi; 2 Wydział Organizacji
of Organization and Management, Lodz, Poland i Zarządzania, Politechnika Łódzka

This article examines the role of Knowledge Management (KM) in W artykule zaprezentowano rolę zarządzania wiedzą (ZW) w szpita-
hospitals and healthcare organizations. It underscores the impor- lach i innych organizacjach opieki zdrowotnej. Omówiono znaczenie
tance of KM in enhancing healthcare delivery in the face of digital ZW w poprawie dostarczania usług zdrowotnych w obliczu transfor-
transformation, an aging population, and the need for cost-effective macji cyfrowej, starzenia się populacji i konieczności efektywnego
practices. The review highlights critical factors such as leadership, zarządzania kosztami. Zwrócono uwagę na kluczowe czynniki, takie
culture, and technology, which are pivotal for KM implementation. jak wsparcie przywódcze, kultura uczenia się i infrastruktura techno-
Additionally, it addresses the significance of both tacit and explicit logiczna, które są niezbędne do implementacji ZW. Dodatkowo omó-
knowledge, particularly in medical know-how and clinical judgment. wiono znaczenie wiedzy zarówno utajonej, jak i jawnej, szczególnie
The dual purpose of this review is to synthesize current research w kontekście medycznego know-how i osądu klinicznego. Podwójny
and to pinpoint research opportunities in KM practices within Polish cel tego przeglądu to syntezowanie obecnego stanu badań dotyczą-
academic hospitals, thereby offering a foundation for future empirical cych ZW w szpitalach oraz wskazanie luk i możliwości dla przyszłych
work. badań empirycznych nad ZW w akademickich szpitalach w Polsce.
Oferuje to fundament teoretyczny i praktyczny dla przyszłych prac
badawczych.

Keywords: knowledge management, healthcare systems, clinical Słowa kluczowe: zarządzanie wiedzą, systemy opieki zdrowotnej,
decision-making, technology in healthcare, medical knowledge dis- podejmowanie decyzji klinicznych, technologia w ochronie zdrowia,
semination, organizational effectiveness, resource optimization efektywność organizacyjna, optymalizacja zasobów

1. Introduction agnostics, the role of KM has become more complex

yet indispensable [2]. Moreover, demographic shifts,
Knowledge Management (KM) is increasingly recog- notably the aging population, intensify the challenges
nized as a pivotal component in the optimization and in healthcare delivery. In rapidly aging European na-
effectiveness of healthcare systems. The critical suc- tions, up to 35% of the population will be elderly by
cess factors for implementing KM in healthcare set- 2050. This demographic shift is anticipated to exacer-
tings have been extensively studied, revealing that bate healthcare expenditures and may potentially lead
elements such as leadership support, a learning cul- to a shortage of healthcare professionals.
ture, and technology infrastructure play a critical role KM in healthcare spans both tacit and explicit forms
[1]. As healthcare faces significant transformations in of knowledge. Tacit knowledge, such as medical know-
the age of digitization, remote care, and advanced di- how or clinical judgment, has received considerable
M. Bobruk, Z. Wiśniewski, A. Kot, Knowledge Management in Hospitals. Review of Literature 73

attention in recent research, particularly concerning its 2.1. The changing landscape of healthcare
ethical implications [3]. Despite these advancements,
The healthcare sector has undergone significant trans-
a comprehensive understanding of how KM is prac-
formations, driven by technological advancements,
ticed and valued in healthcare institutions, especially
demographic shifts, and emerging health challenges.
hospitals, remains fragmented [1].
In this evolving landscape, Knowledge Management
The aim of this literature review is twofold. First, it
(KM) has become an essential component in enhanc-
seeks to synthesize the current state of research con-
ing hospital operations, healthcare delivery, and deci-
cerning KM within hospitals and other healthcare or-
sion-making processes [8].
ganizations, highlighting the significant barriers and
The advent of big data and healthcare informa-
critical success factors [3]. Second, it aims to identify
tion technologies such as Electronic Health Records
gaps and opportunities for future empirical research
(EHR) and telemedicine has amplified the role of KM.
on KM in academic hospitals in Poland. Consequently,
EHRs have allowed hospitals to store a wealth of data
this review serves as both a theoretical contribution to
ranging from patient information to medical research,
the existing literature and as a practical foundation for
enabling better diagnostic and treatment decisions [5].
directing future investigations into the specific KM chal-
Telemedicine has further extended the reach and ef-
lenges and practices within Polish academic hospitals.
fectiveness of KM by facilitating remote consultation
and real-time data sharing [2].
2. Background Concurrently, the aging population represents a piv-
otal demographic shift affecting healthcare delivery. In
Knowledge Management (KM) has increasingly been
European nations experiencing rapid aging, up to 35%
acknowledged as a critical component in the function-
of the population is expected to be elderly by 2050,
ing and competitiveness of healthcare systems [4].
exacerbating healthcare expenditures and intensify-
Particularly in the hospital setting, KM not only contrib-
ing the complexity of healthcare needs [6]. KM, in this
utes to enhanced patient care but also to organization-
context, helps in optimizing resource allocation and
al effectiveness and innovation [1].
clinical workflows to address the challenges posed by
The hospital environment is complex, consisting
demographic shifts.
of multiple layers of interdisciplinary work, often in-
Another emerging trend is the focus on person-
volving critical and time-sensitive decisions. Effective
alized medicine, which requires a multidimensional
KM practices can support clinical decision-making by
understanding of patients, including genetic make-
systematically capturing, storing, and disseminating
up, lifestyle, and other social determinants of health.
valuable medical knowledge and information [3]. For
Effective KM systems facilitate the integration of this
instance, KM platforms can facilitate better access to
multi-faceted knowledge into clinical practices [1].
medical histories, test results, and potential treatment
Despite these advancements, the practice of KM in
options, allowing medical practitioners to make more
healthcare remains fragmented, partly due to the gap
informed decisions.
between the technological capabilities and the practi-
Moreover, hospitals are increasingly relying on so-
cal implementation in hospital settings. The interplay
phisticated technology like Electronic Health Records
between tacit knowledge, such as clinical judgement,
(EHRs) and telemedicine platforms. These technol-
and explicit knowledge stored in healthcare informa-
ogies produce a large amount of data, which when
tion systems has yet to be fully understood [7].
managed effectively, can significantly contribute to re-
search and evidence-based practice. [2] Effective KM
2.2. Types of knowledge in healthcare
practices help to translate this data into actionable in-
sights, thereby aiding in medical diagnosis, treatment In the context of healthcare, and particularly in hospi-
planning, and health outcomes analysis [5]. tals, knowledge is broadly categorized into two types:
Amidst increasing healthcare expenditures and tacit and explicit knowledge. Both types have signif-
shortages in medical professionals, particularly evi- icant implications for Knowledge Management (KM)
dent in aging societies [6], KM provides ways to opti- practices, affecting the effectiveness of healthcare de-
mize resources. It helps in streamlining operations, re- livery and decision-making processes [9].
ducing duplication of diagnostic tests, and significantly
cutting down administrative costs [7]. Tacit Knowledge
In summary, the role of KM in hospitals is multi-dimen- Tacit knowledge encompasses skills, experiences,
sional and crucial. It plays a pivotal role in enhancing clin- and insights that healthcare professionals acquire
ical decisions, leveraging technological advancements over time. This form of knowledge is often difficult to
for patient care, and providing a sustainable model for articulate and formalize, yet is crucial in clinical judge-
healthcare delivery amidst growing challenges. ment and patient care. Medical practitioners frequently
74 Review of Medical Practice, 2023; Vol. XXIX, No. 3

rely on their tacit knowledge for diagnostics, treatment By addressing these primary research aims, the
plans, and even in interpersonal communications with systematic review furnishes a rigorous academic
patients and families [10]. groundwork beneficial to both researchers and prac-
titioners, thereby facilitating the improvement and
Explicit Knowledge standardization of KM protocols essential to health-
Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is structured, care systems.
codified, and easily shareable. This includes guide-
lines, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and re- 3.1. Method
search findings. Hospitals have increasingly adopted
Searches were conducted in March of 2022 using sci-
sophisticated KM systems, such as Electronic Health
entific databases: Elsevier and PubMed. These sourc-
Records (EHRs), to manage and disseminate explicit
es were chosen based on their relevance to health-
knowledge effectively [11].
care and knowledge management research, and their
common usage in systematic literature reviews in the
Interplay between Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
field [14].
The effective management of healthcare knowledge
The search terms began with “Knowledge Mana­
hinges on the seamless interaction between these two
gement” and were followed by “hospital*” “clinic*”,
types of knowledge. For instance, clinical pathways of-
“medical*” and “healthcare”. These searches across
ten comprise explicit knowledge, such as best practic-
all selected databases jointly identified 3512 sources
es or treatment protocols, integrated with tacit knowl-
to be initially reviewed.
edge acquired from medical practitioners’ experience
To determine the eligibility for inclusion in our sys-
[12]. This interplay is vital in situations that require
tematic review, the authors coded all sources based on
immediate decision-making, such as emergency care.
the following criteria: (1) the article was written in Eng-
Hospitals are incorporating KM systems that enable
lish; (2) have been published in the last 10 years be-
real-time communication and knowledge exchange
fore the moment of search; (3) the article was relevant
among healthcare practitioners [13].
to the study of knowledge management in healthcare,
In summary, Knowledge Management (KM) has
as discerned from the title and abstract. This reduced
evolved as a crucial component in healthcare, gaining
the list from 3512 to 2195 sources. Further, we eval-
specific importance in the intricate landscape of hos-
uated: (1) whether the source included an empirical
pitals. The background section has outlined the multi-
study (be it quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method);
faceted nature of KM, detailing both tacit and explicit
(2) whether the source specifically studied aspects of
types of knowledge and their significance in health-
Knowledge Management in healthcare settings; (3)
care delivery and decision-making. These foundation-
whether KM was a binding aspect addressed in the
al insights set the stage for our next section, where we
publication; (4) publication has relevant attributes, ac-
present a systematic review aimed at deepening our
cording to MeSH – Knowledge Management, accord-
understanding of how KM is applied and valued within
ing to Emtree Information Management.
the context of hospital settings.
This further reduced our list from 2195 to 190 sour­
ces, all of which were included in our systematic liter-
3. Knowledge management in hospitals: ature review. For each of the 190 sources, we coded
a systematic review of research the type of publication (e.g., article, dissertation), the
publication outlet, the country of the study, and the
This systematic review is guided by dual primary re- specific healthcare settings involved (e.g., public hos-
search aims. Initially, the review endeavors to consol- pitals, university hospitals).
idate extant scholarly work on the multifaceted role The full texts of the qualified articles were then re-
and impact of Knowledge Management (KM) within viewed in depth by the authors of this article. Each
healthcare environments, particularly hospitals. It article was rigorously evaluated based on its contribu-
achieves this through an interdisciplinary synthesis, tions to the understanding of knowledge management
incorporating insights from healthcare management, processes, enablers, drivers, and challenges specific
information technology, and organizational behavior. to healthcare organizations. Subsequently, the articles
Secondarily, this scholarly inquiry identifies an ex- were coded for attributes like the type of publication,
isting research gap pertaining to the application of publication outlet, country of the study, healthcare set-
norms and standards in hospital KM practices. Utiliz- tings involved, and research methods employed. Us-
ing findings from prior studies, the review not only ex- ing an inductive content categorization approach, arti-
pands upon the current theoretical framework but also cles were further categorized into emergent thematic
delineates under-researched areas requiring further clusters to identify patterns and trends in the literature
scholarly attention. [15].
M. Bobruk, Z. Wiśniewski, A. Kot, Knowledge Management in Hospitals. Review of Literature 75

3.2. Systematic review results The synthesis of the reviewed literature demon-
strates that KM in healthcare is a multi-faceted domain,
3.2.1. Overview of research studies
touching upon conceptual underpinnings, technologi-
The comprehensive literature search yielded 190 qual- cal and organizational infrastructures, and human be-
ified articles addressing various facets of Knowledge haviors. This review not only serves as a repository
Management (KM) in healthcare settings. Our analy- of the existing scholarship but also paves the way for
sis, rooted in methodologies upheld by previous sys- future research by highlighting gaps in understanding
tematic reviews, adhered to rigorous inclusion and and methodological discrepancies.
exclusion criteria, ranging from the language of pub-
3.2.2. Overview of existing knowledge
lication to the relevance and recency of the research.
Our multi-dimensional coding process illuminated key Foundational Concepts and Strategies
patterns and led us to segregate the literature into five In the burgeoning field of knowledge management
overarching thematic categories. (KM) within healthcare, the foundational concepts
and overarching strategies hold immense significance
Foundational Concepts and Strategies for practical applications and theoretical advance-
The earliest works primarily focused on introducing ments alike. A seminal categorization by Nonaka and
the idea of KM in healthcare and outlined the strat- Takeuchi distinguishes between two primary types of
egies for knowledge acquisition, dissemination, and knowledge: tacit and explicit [16]. Tacit knowledge re-
utilization. Papers in this category often outlined con- sides in the intangible, deeply rooted in individual ex-
ceptual frameworks, often building on Nonaka’s theo- periences and internalized values. On the other hand,
ry of knowledge creation or Wenger’s communities of explicit knowledge is formalized and can be easily
practice. communicated and shared. This dichotomy serves as
the underpinning framework for various KM processes
Knowledge Sources and Sharing Mechanisms in healthcare settings, especially hospitals.
Articles in this cluster emphasized the varied sources of The role of a well-aligned KM strategy can’t be
healthcare knowledge, from Electronic Health Records overstated. As noted by Porter, strategic alignment
(EHR) to tacit knowledge between practitioners. Re- optimizes resource allocation and streamlines organ-
search frequently discussed how this knowledge could izational processes [17]. Prahalad and Hamel further
be shared effectively – be it through internal organiza- advanced this concept by emphasizing core compe-
tional networks, workshops, or electronic portals. tencies, arguing that strategic KM should cultivate and
leverage these unique organizational skills [18]. In
Technological and Organizational Enablers healthcare, particularly in hospitals, the alignment of
These articles emphasized the role of IT systems, KM strategy with clinical and administrative goals can
data warehouses, and organizational culture as en- significantly enhance patient care, reduce errors, and
ablers. Moreover, the role of leadership in fostering facilitate effective decision-making [19].
a knowledge-friendly environment was highlighted, One of the compelling aspects of KM in healthcare
drawing insights from both organizational theory and is the uniqueness of the knowledge involved. Health-
information systems literature. care providers frequently have to make complex deci-
sions that can be life-altering, making the need for an
Drivers, Challenges, and Impacts effective KM strategy even more crucial [20]. More-
This category encapsulated articles focused on what over, such strategies need to be adaptive due to the
propels KM initiatives and what impediments they rapidly evolving nature of medical science and health-
face. Studies ranged from examining economic driv- care technologies [21].
ers to elaborating on the challenges like data security, Specifically, in hospital settings, a comprehensive
ethical concerns, and resistance to change. The im- KM strategy must encompass not only clinical exper-
pacts, such as enhanced patient care or organization- tise but also operational and administrative know-how.
al efficiency, were also a recurrent focus. Such a strategy usually integrates multi-disciplinary
knowledge, capturing insights from nursing staff to
Behavioral Aspects and Future Perspectives top-tier hospital management [22].
The last category was predominantly forward-look- Lastly, the importance of KM strategy in healthcare
ing, discussing how behavioral factors like motivation, seems to be gaining increasing recognition, albeit the
trust, and openness influence KM. Speculative pieces field is still relatively young. Studies have started to
discussing the potential influence of emerging tech- shed light on how KM can directly contribute to hospi-
nologies like Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain in tal performance indicators such as patient satisfaction
healthcare KM were also prevalent. and service quality [20].
76 Review of Medical Practice, 2023; Vol. XXIX, No. 3

In summary, understanding the fundamental types these come with their set of challenges such as data
of knowledge and the role of aligned KM strategies privacy and ethical considerations.
sets the stage for exploring more intricate dimensions In essence, the landscape of knowledge sources
of KM in healthcare, notably in hospitals. Given the and sharing mechanisms in hospitals is a rich tapestry
gravity and complexity of healthcare provision, the woven from multiple disciplines, methodologies, and
need for robust KM practices underscored by a well- technologies. Recognizing these different sources and
thought-out strategy remains an area ripe for contin- mechanisms is pivotal for constructing effective KM
ued research and practical refinement. strategies in healthcare. The fluidity and complexity in-
herent in the hospital environment necessitate a con-
Knowledge Sources and Sharing Mechanisms tinuous evaluation of these knowledge components
In the sphere of knowledge management (KM) within to better align with the rapidly evolving landscape of
hospitals, understanding the various sources of knowl- healthcare. By acknowledging these variables, re-
edge and the mechanisms for sharing that knowledge searchers and practitioners can craft more effective
is instrumental for both academic investigation and and adaptive KM frameworks, tailored to the unique
practical implementation. While tacit and explicit knowl- challenges and opportunities present in hospital set-
edge serve as the foundational building blocks [16], tings. And as technology and healthcare practices con-
hospitals present a unique amalgamation of sources tinue to evolve, so too will the paradigms for sourcing
where this knowledge originates or is disseminated. and sharing knowledge, making this an ongoing field of
Clinical knowledge, often found in medical literature, study ripe for further scholarly and practical exploration.
guidelines, and protocols, is a dominant form of explic-
it knowledge. Conversely, experiential knowledge that Technological and Organizational Enablers
healthcare professionals accumulate through years The intricate landscape of knowledge management
of practice constitutes an invaluable reservoir of tacit (KM) in healthcare necessitates a multi-pronged
knowledge. Yet another layer is organizational knowl- approach to facilitate effective knowledge sharing
edge, which is embedded in hospital processes, work- and utilization. While foundational concepts lay the
flows, and institutional culture. This information often groundwork for KM, technological and organization-
remains undocumented but is crucial for operational al enablers act as catalysts, propelling the efficacy of
success [23]. Furthermore, patient-generated data, in- KM practices to new heights. Both technological and
cluding medical histories and feedback, has started to organizational factors have been identified as instru-
gain academic recognition for its potential in improving mental in shaping KM outcomes [10].
service delivery and outcomes. The role of technology in KM can hardly be over-
Equally diverse are the mechanisms employed for stated. In particular, Electronic Health Records
sharing knowledge within the hospital setting. Tra- (EHRs) have emerged as a cornerstone of healthcare
ditional methods such as formal training programs, KM, streamlining data storage and information retriev-
seminars, and workshops have been the mainstay al (Jha, DesRoches, Campbell, Donelan, Rao, Ferris,
for explicit knowledge dissemination [24]. On the Shields, Rosenbaum, & Blumenthal, 2009). A study by
other hand, tacit knowledge has largely been shared Menachemi and Collum found that EHRs contribute
through mentorship, job-shadowing, and daily interac- to enhanced clinical outcomes and process improve-
tions among healthcare providers [25]. The advent of ments [5]. More recently, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and
technology has introduced novel platforms for knowl- Machine Learning (ML) technologies are being ap-
edge sharing. Electronic Health Records (EHRs), for plied to analyze complex datasets to guide clinical de-
instance, have revolutionized the way clinical informa- cisions. The shift towards a more technologically driv-
tion is shared among healthcare professionals [26]. en approach has been found to improve the accuracy
Moreover, intranet portals, discussion forums, and and efficiency of healthcare delivery [28].
more recently, social media platforms have emerged On the organizational front, the culture of knowl-
as powerful tools for fostering a culture of knowledge edge sharing serves as a critical enabler. A study by
sharing in hospitals [5]. Donate and Guadamillas emphasized that an organ-
However, it is essential to note that knowledge izational culture that encourages knowledge sharing
sharing in hospitals is not without its challenges. Fac- had a significant impact on KM effectiveness [29]. In
tors like time constraints, lack of awareness, or even a similar vein, leadership’s role in enabling KM has
territoriality among departments can hinder effective been scrutinized. Effective leaders not only facilitate
knowledge dissemination [27]. Simultaneously, ad- knowledge sharing but also instill a sense of purpose,
vances in telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence offer thus impacting KM positively [30].
unparalleled opportunities to share knowledge across The structure of the organization itself also comes
geographical and temporal boundaries, although into play. Flexible organizational structures that foster
M. Bobruk, Z. Wiśniewski, A. Kot, Knowledge Management in Hospitals. Review of Literature 77

inter-departmental collaboration have been shown to The influence of KM on patient care and operational
facilitate better KM practices [31]. Moreover, the stra- efficiency has been an area of rigorous research. Hos-
tegic alignment of KM objectives with the organiza- pitals adopting successful KM practices have demon-
tion’s goals directly impacts the overall efficacy of KM strated improvements in patient safety measures,
processes [32]. diagnosis accuracy, and overall healthcare service
However, both technological and organization- quality [39]. Additionally, better KM practices correlate
al factors bring their set of challenges. Technology with increased job satisfaction among healthcare pro-
adoption can be impeded by a lack of resources fessionals [21].
and training, as well as issues of data security [33]. It is essential to acknowledge that these drivers,
Organizational barriers often include resistance to challenges, and impacts are interconnected. For in-
change and knowledge hoarding behaviors that can stance, effective leadership can not only act as a driv-
stifle KM initiatives [34]. er but can also mitigate challenges such as resistance
The synergy between technological and organiza- to change, thereby amplifying the positive impacts of
tional enablers has the potential to significantly amplify KM [40]. On the flip side, challenges like data security
KM outcomes. Research by Sherif, Hoffman, Thomas, concerns can stifle the drivers, leading to diminished
and Ragsdale highlighted that successful KM is often or suboptimal impacts [41].
the result of a balanced focus on both technological In summary, KM in hospitals is a multifaceted area
systems and organizational practices. influenced by various drivers and challenges, each
In summary, technological and organizational ena- contributing to the broader impact on healthcare de-
blers act as critical levers in the effective implementa- livery and professional satisfaction. As research in this
tion of KM in healthcare settings, especially hospitals. domain continues to evolve, it is imperative to further
Both aspects come with their unique sets of challenges investigate these relationships to maximize the posi-
that need to be acknowledged and addressed. Given tive outcomes of KM initiatives in hospitals.
the emergent nature of this research area, it becomes
imperative for future studies to delve deeper into un- Behavioral aspects and future perspectives
derstanding how these enablers can be optimized for The landscape of knowledge management (KM) in
superior KM outcomes. hospitals is profoundly affected by various behavioral
aspects. Staff collaboration and knowledge-sharing
Drivers, Challenges, and Impacts behavior are pivotal elements for the successful imple-
Studies in the realm of knowledge management (KM) mentation of KM initiatives [42]. A new aspect gaining
within healthcare settings, notably hospitals, under- attention is the role of ‘consciousness’ or ‘awareness’
line several key drivers that significantly contribute to in KM. This involves healthcare professionals’ aware-
the effective functioning of KM systems. One of the ness of the value and utility of the knowledge they
prominent drivers is the digital transformation within possess, as well as the knowledge that exists within
healthcare, including the use of Electronic Health Re- the organization. Such awareness could significantly
cords (EHRs) and Decision Support Systems (DSS) affect their willingness to share or seek information,
to improve patient outcomes and process efficien- thus impacting KM efficiency [23].
cy [26]. Additionally, organizational culture fostering Moreover, emotional factors and organizational
a supportive environment for knowledge sharing has hierarchies can act as either catalysts or barriers to
been found to positively influence KM processes [35]. effective KM [43]. Leadership behaviors have a sig-
Leadership’s role is also noted as a major driver, with nificant role in shaping the knowledge management
leaders acting as catalysts in establishing and pro- landscape in healthcare settings. Leaders who foster
moting KM initiatives [16]. a culture that rewards knowledge sharing contribute
However, the transition to an effective KM system in to more effective KM systems [44]. The integration of
hospitals is not devoid of obstacles. Among the signifi- consciousness into leadership approaches is an area
cant challenges, the issue of data privacy and security ripe for further study [9].
is a recurring concern, considering the sensitivity of Emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelli-
healthcare information [36]. Besides, organizational gence (AI) impact behavioral aspects of KM, including
resistance, particularly from medical staff who are ac- consciousness, and represent a crucial area for future
customed to traditional practices, can act as a barrier research. The behavioral dynamics of KM in crisis situ-
to implementing KM systems effectively [37]. Another ations, such as a pandemic, can have complex effects
challenge is the issue of interoperability among vari- on knowledge-sharing behaviors. Additionally, the
ous technological systems, which can limit seamless concept of knowledge hoarding needs further study to
knowledge sharing and retrieval [38]. understand its impact on patient care and safety [45].
78 Review of Medical Practice, 2023; Vol. XXIX, No. 3

Behavioral aspects are foundational to the effec- successful or otherwise. Understanding the intricate
tive implementation of KM in hospitals. Understand- processes involved in KM can provide insights into its
ing these dimensions will provide valuable insights for limitations and possibilities for improvement [21].
enhancing patient care and operational efficiency in While existing literature has laid the groundwork for
healthcare settings. understanding KM in hospitals, these proposed direc-
tions aim to fill the existing research gap. Prioritizing
4. Knowledge management in hospitals: these areas for future research can not only contribute
future research directions to the academic discussion but also have a tangible
impact on healthcare delivery and outcomes.
The existing body of literature on knowledge manage-
ment (KM) within hospitals has expanded our under- 4.4. Systems dynamics and the impact of new
standing of its potential benefits and challenges [8]. technologies
However, several important areas have yet to be fully Given the nascent and complex nature of KM within
explored. This chapter outlines crucial directions for hospital settings, further studies are required to better
future research, focusing on the evaluation of existing understand these dynamics. For example, the effect
standards and best practices, studies on awareness of emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI)
levels among healthcare professionals, and research and Internet of Things (IoT) on KM in hospitals remains
into KM processes within hospital settings. an underexplored area [51]. Similarly, how variations
in organizational culture across different healthcare
4.1. Evaluation of existing standards and best settings affect KM effectiveness is a subject deserving
practices further inquiry [35].
With the evolution of KM in healthcare, several stand-
ards and best practices have been developed. These 5. Conclusion
standards may range from protocols for sharing pa-
tient information between departments to methods for As we have traversed the multifaceted landscape of
updating medical staff about recent advancements knowledge management (KM) in hospitals, one can-
[46]. However, empirical studies that critically evaluate not help but appreciate the depth and breadth of re-
the effectiveness and adaptability of these standards search conducted in this domain. From the mechanics
in various healthcare settings are noticeably lack- of information sharing to the human variables that can
ing [47]. It is also worth noting the publication of the either amplify or attenuate the success of KM initia-
ISO 30401:2018 standard, which, although not direct- tives, the existing literature provides a robust foun-
ly related to health care, may shed interesting light on dation. Yet, it’s precisely this richness that illuminates
the issue of standardization and quantification of as- new terrains for intellectual exploration, shaped by the
pects in KM in health care units as well. Assessing the dynamism intrinsic to healthcare, social interactions,
relevance and effectiveness of these standards can and technological advancements.
facilitate better KM and inform policy-making [48]. While this review signifies that KM in hospitals
is a well-charted field, the rapid transformations in
4.2. Awareness among healthcare healthcare technologies, patient expectations, and
professionals healthcare policies make it an area that continually
defies a state of ‘completion.’ Consequently, it’s both
Knowledge management relies heavily on the partic-
the maturity and fluidity of this field that make it fertile
ipation of healthcare professionals. Therefore, under-
ground for new lines of inquiry.
standing their level of awareness regarding KM prac-
Even as we acknowledge the maturity of research
tices is essential for effective implementation. A lack of
in evaluating existing KM standards and best practic-
awareness among healthcare professionals can hin-
es, gaps still prevail. Such gaps are not merely aca-
der the effective utilization of KM resources and lead
demic pursuits; they are imperatives that could alter
to suboptimal patient outcomes. Studies can aim to
healthcare outcomes and operational efficiency. The
quantify this awareness and suggest targeted educa-
ever-evolving nature of healthcare technologies and
tional interventions [49].
protocols, coupled with shifts in patient demographics
and expectations, necessitates ongoing assessments
4.3. Research into KM processes
to ensure that these practices are not just theoretically
Current research often discusses KM in hospitals sound but empirically effective.
at a macro level, focusing on outcomes rather than Moreover, while the role of healthcare profession-
underlying processes [50]. There is a need to delve als in KM is undeniably pivotal, their varying levels of
deeper into the micro-level processes that make KM awareness and willingness to adopt KM best practices
M. Bobruk, Z. Wiśniewski, A. Kot, Knowledge Management in Hospitals. Review of Literature 79

become a variable that can’t be overlooked. Bridging 13.Hilligoss B., Song P.H.: Creating patient safety capacity in
a fragmented health care system: A black swan moment
this awareness gap offers a roadmap to more stream- for health information exchange. Med Care Res Rev 2015;
lined and effective KM systems, ultimately benefiting 72(6): 736–749.
14.Booth A., Sutton A., Papaioannou D.: Systematic Appro-
both healthcare providers and patients alike. aches to a Successful Literature Review. 2nd ed. Los Ange-
In the realm of underlying KM processes, our review les: Sage; 2016. 71–88.
15.Elo S., Kyngäs H.: The qualitative content analysis process.
highlights the need for more granular research. Inves- J Adv Nurs 2008; 62(1): 107–115.
tigations into the minutiae of these processes prom- 16.Nonaka I., Takeuchi H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company:
How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innova-
ise not just theoretical advancements but actionable tion. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
insights that can be directly translated into improved 17.Porter M.: What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 1996;
74(6): 61–78.
patient care and operational efficiencies. 18.Prahalad C.K., Hamel G.: The Core Competence of the Cor-
Finally, the intersection of KM and emerging tech- poration. Harvard Business Review 1990; 05: 79–91.
19.Davenport T.H.: Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise
nologies like AI and IoT hints at an imminent paradigm System. Harvard Business Review 1998; 76: 121–131.
shift. It’s not just the technological variables that war- 20.Wang S., Noe R.A.: Knowledge Sharing: A Review and
Directions for Future Research. Human Resource Manage-
rant study; it’s their confluence with human factors and ment Review 2010; 20: 115–131.
organizational cultures that hold the promise – or per- 21.Alavi M., Leidner D.E.: Knowledge Management and Know-
ledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and
haps the challenge – of redefining KM in healthcare. Research Issues. MIS Quarterly 2001; 25: 107–136.
To navigate the promise and complexities of KM in 22.Gold A., Malhotra A., Segars A.: Knowledge Management:
An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Ma-
healthcare, this multifaceted approach – combining nagement Information Systems 2001; 18: 185–214.
rigorous academic scrutiny with a keen eye for prac- 23.Davenport T. &. P.L.: Working Knowledge: How Organiza-
tical application – is non-negotiable. It’s not merely tions Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press; 1998.
about adding to the body of knowledge but also shap- 24.Argote L.: Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and
ing the future of healthcare. Transferring Knowledge. Berlin: Springer Science & Busi-
ness Media; 2012.
25.Eraut M.: Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in profes-
sional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2000;
References 70: 113–136.
26.Blumenthal D., Tavenner M.: The “Meaningful Use” Regula-
1. Gagnon M.P., Attieh R., Ghandour E.K. et al.: A systematic tion for Electronic Health Records. New England Journal of
review of instruments to assess organizational readiness for Medicine 2010; 363: 501–504.
knowledge translation in health care. PloS One 2015; 10(12): 27.Levitt B., March J.: Organizational Learning. Annual Review
e0143842: 1–18. of Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 1988; 14: 319–
2. Snyder-Halpern R., Verran J.A.: Leadership strategies for 340.
advancing telehealth: Developing an effective telehealth pro- 28.Wang Y., Kung L., Byrd T.A.: Big data analytics: Understan-
gram with a focus on organizational structure and change ding its capabilities and potential benefits for healthcare or-
management. J Health Manag 2018; 63(4): 237–249. ganizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
3. Anand G., Kodali R., Tiwari M.K.: A Conceptual Framework 2018; 126(C): 3–13.
for Knowledge Management in Healthcare: A Viewpoint. Jo- 29.Donate M.J., Guadamillas F.: Organizational Factors to Sup-
urnal of Advances in Management Research 2014; 11(1): port Knowledge Management and Innovation. Journal of
105–125. Knowledge Management 2011; 15: 890–914.
4. Dwivedi A., Bali R.K., James A.E.: A study of Critical Success 30.Cummings J.N.: Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and
Factors (CSFs) for effective Knowledge Management (KM) Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management
implementation in hospitals. Informatics for Health and So- Science 2004; 50: 352–364.
cial Care 2019; 44(1): 45–55. 31.Tseng S.: The Correlation between Organizational Culture
5. Menachemi N., Collum T.H.: Benefits and drawbacks of elec- and Knowledge Conversion on Corporate Performance. Jo-
tronic health record systems, Risk Management And Heal- urnal of Knowledge Management 2010; 14: 269–284.
thcare Policy 2011; 4: 47–55. 32.Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: Strategic Learning: The Balanced
6. Bloom D.E., Chatterji S., Kowal P. et al.: Macroeconomic im- Scorecard. Strategy & Leadership 1996; 24: 18–24.
plications of population ageing and selected policy respon- 33.Kankanhalli A., Tan B., Wei K.K.: Contributing Knowledge to
ses. Lancet 2015; 385(9968): 649–657. Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investiga-
7. Kaplan R.S., Porter M.E.: How to solve the cost crisis in he- tion. MIS Quarterly 2005; 29: 113–143.
alth care. Harv Bus Rev 2011; 89(9): 46–52, 54, 56–61 pas- 34.Riege A.: Three-Dozen Knowledge-Sharing Barriers Ma-
sim. nagers Must Consider. Journal of Knowledge Management
8. Bali R.K., Dwivedi A.N.: Healthcare Knowledge Manage- 2005; 9: 18–35.
ment: Issues, Advances and Successes. Heidelberg: Sprin- 35.Wenger E., McDermott R., Snyder W.M.: A guide to mana-
ger; 2016. ging knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston,
9. Nonaka I., Toyama R.: The knowledge-based view of the firm MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2002.
and its theoretical precursor: The resource-based theory. In: 36.Appari A., Johnson E.M.: Information security and privacy in
Easterby-Smith M., Lyles M.A., ed. Handbook of Organiza- healthcare: current state of research. International Journal of
tional Learning and Knowledge Management. 2nd ed. Chi- Internet and Enterprise Management 2010; 6(4): 279–314.
chester: John Wiley & Sons; 2015. 151–184. 37.Davenport T., Delong D., Beers M.: Successful Knowledge
10.Hislop D., Bosua R., Helms R.: Knowledge Management in Management Projects. Sloan Management Review 1998;
Organizations: A Critical Introduction. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford 39: 43–57.
University Press; 2018. 128–155. 38.Jha A.K. et al.: Patients’ Perception of Hospital Care in the
11. Rouleau G., Gagnon M.P., Cote J., Payne-Gagnon J., Hud- United States. New England Journal of Medicine 2008; 359:
son E., Dubois C.A.: Impact of information and communica- 1921–1931.
tion technologies on nursing care: Results of an overview of 39.Chaudhry B., Wang J., Wu S., Maglione M., Mojica W.,
systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(4): e122. Roth E. et al.: Systematic Review: Impact of Health Informa-
1–14. tion Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical
12.Thiel S.W., Rosini J.M., Shannon W., Doherty J.A., Mi- care. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006; 144: 742–752.
cek S.T., Kollef M.H.: Early prediction of septic shock in ho- 40.Drucker P.: Knowledge Worker Productivity: The Biggest
spitalized patients. J Hosp Med 2019; 4(1): 26–31. Challenge. California Management Review 1999; 41: 79–94.
80 Review of Medical Practice, 2023; Vol. XXIX, No. 3

41.Smith J.E.: Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Re- 49.Goh B.: The Dynamic Effects of the Asian Financial Crisis on
search Methods. London: Sage Publications; 2003. Construction Demand and Tender Price Levels in Singapore.
42.Argote l., McEvily B., Reagans R.: Managing Knowledge Building and Environment 2005; 40: 267–276.
in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of 50.Bhatt G.: Knowledge Management in Organizations: Exami-
Emerging Themes. Management Science 2003; 49(4): 571– ning the Interaction between Technologies, Techniques, and
582. People. Journal of Knowledge Management 2001; 5: 68–75.
43.Connelly C.E., Zweig D., Webster J., Trougakos J.P.: Know- 51.Raghupathi W., Raghupathi V.: Big Data Analytics in Heal-
ledge Hiding in Organizations. Journal of Organizational Be- thcare: Promise and Potential. Health Information Science
havior 2012; 33: 64–88. and Systems 2014; Feb 7: 2–3.
44.Schepers P., van den Berg P.: Social Factors of Work- 52.Hosseini S., Yaghoubi M., Javadi M., Rezaei F.: An investi-
-Environment Creativity. Journal of Business and Psycholo- gation into the critical success factors for hospital knowledge
gy 2007; 21: 407–428. management implementation. Health Information Manage-
45.Connelly C.E., Turel O., Ford D., Gallupe B., Zweig D.: ‘I’m ment Journal 2021; 50(1): 37–47.
busy (and competitive)!’ Antecedents of knowledge sharing
under pressure. Knowledge Management Research & Prac-
tice 2014; 12: 74–85. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
46.McDonald S.: Studying actions in context: A qualitative sha-
dowing method for organizational research. Qualitative Re-
search 2005; 5: 455–473.
Address for correspondence:
47.Cohen W., Levinthal D.: Absorptive Capacity: A New Per-
spective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science
Marcin Bobruk
Quarterly 1990; 35: 128–152.
Wydział Nauk o Zdrowiu
48.Devaraj S., Kohli R.: Performance Impacts of Information
Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link? Management Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi
Science 2003; 49: 273–289. e-mail: [email protected]