Our team read with interest the article entitled “A blueprint for nursing innovation centers” by Barr and colleagues published in the December-January 2021 issue of Nursing Outlook. The article drew on experieces of a select set of educational and practice-based settings, to describe themes for creating and sustaining an impactful nursing innovation center or program. In this commentary, we would like to share the experience of the Healthcare Innovation and Impact Program (HiiP) at the University of Michigan School of Nursing (https://nursing.umich.edu/HiiP) and discuss how it relates to some of the challenges and themes identified by Barr and colleagues.The Healthcare Innovation Impact Program (HiiP), following a recommendation from the Nursing Innovation Taskforce comprised of clinical and tenure-track faculty and students. (; Changing the Innovation Conversation, 2020) After surveying faculty and students, the taskforce identified a high level of interest in innovation among the faculty and students. The majority of survey respondents said they had an original idea or were interested in participating in innovative projects, yet many also noted low self-confidence and knowledge of how to implement their ideas. Several faculty members had attempted to engage with various innovation and enterpreneurship resources already existing in other units (e.g. business, engineering, medicine) at the University of Michigan but found these resources did not fit their needs. Students also expressed an interest in innovation and entrepreneurship opportunities, splitting whether these should be part of the curriculum or extra-curricular opportunities. The majority of faculty and students favored the idea of providing innovation support services and resources in the School of Nursing, desinged specifically for nurse innovators.Therefore, the our goals were to: (1) support nurse innovators (clinical and tenure-track faculty and students) from idea to market; (2) foster a culture of innovation among nurses (faculty and students), and (3) promote inter-disciplinary collaboration between nursing and engineering, business, medicine, and other campus units. To achieve our goals, we built our program based on three principles:•

Innovator-centered support:  we chose a one-on-one coaching model. A faculty or student who reaches out to us with an idea or a prototype is connected with a member of our team who becomes their coach. The coach works with each innovator one-on-one, tailoring teaching/consulting/connecting services to the innovator’s unique needs and goals. The one-on-one coaching approach allows each innovator to progress at a personal pace while balancing their other responsibilities. We accept and work equally with all innovators, regardless of their project's scope or potential for a market success.

•

Multi-constituency engagement: we equally focus on clinical and tenure-track faculty, and students, to build a sustainable pipeline of nurse innovation talent. Involving clinical and tenure-track faculty and students allows for shared excitement and synergies among programmatic activities for these key constituencies.

•

Multidisciplinary, collaborative model: our program is integrated with the University of Michigan's broader innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem that includes schools of engineering, business, medicine, information technology, and music and theater. We serve as a two-way gateway: for nurse innovators to access a wealth of specialized knowledge outside of nursing and for innovators from other disciplines to connect with our nurse experts. Our program staff is also multidisciplinary, representing nursing, business, and entrepreneurship.

Like the other nursing innovation initiatives highlighted by Barr and colleagues, we have faced a number of challenges. Firstly, despite a strong three-year growth of our portfolio, more than two dosen new invention disclosures, and a handful of market lauches, we have not always had the resourses needed to meet our innovators' needs. Because our phylosophy is to support all projects, regardless of ther potential market value, many of our nursing innovations are non-monetizable and, generally, are not expected to yield a financial return—despite benefits to patients, families, and communities. Our program is currently funded internally by the School of Nursing for program staff and faculty effort, and for core programmatic activities (coaching, engagement, community-building). Some programmatic expensens, particulary those related to idividual innovator's project needs, are covered through a combination of School of Nursing donor funding and small internal grants. Growing, but still limited, recognition of nurses as innovators, and of innovation and entrepreneurship as an integral part of nursing practice, limits access to traditional sources of extramural funding like government grants and private foundations. Because we are currently unable to provide our innovators with full support and protected time for project-related activities, many of our innovators have struggled with bandwidth, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic that put an excess burden on the profession. Remote instruction has made it difficult to engage nursing faculty and students in innovation-related activities and programming, further contributing to the challenge of nurturing talent and building a pipeline of future nurse innovators.

A lack of a consistent definition of nursing innovation and viable outcome metrics presents an additional challenge to building and sustaining a culture of innovation in a school of nursing. The word “innovation” can be daunting to nurses as it conjures up ideas of commercial products, apps, and devices, deterring some facutly members and students from stepping forward with their innovative ideas. We found that defining nursing innovation more inclusively, as discovery and implementation of new solutions that bring value to care delivery, patients, or nurses—specifically noting that nursing innovation does NOT need to be commercially lucrative—better reflects the range of nursing innovations and resonates with our faculty and students. Our outcome metrics are also more inclusive and aligned with the types of nursing innovation. While traditional metrics like market share and revenue are applicable to some nursing innovations, success of others is better captured by the number of subscribers to a training program, scalability at other health systems, or sustainability over time. Benefits gained by nurse innovators themselves—such as self-empowerment, innovation and business acumen, and other “soft” innovator-centric outcomes—are also important and should be quantified, measured, and tracked over time.

As outlined by the Barr et al., 2021Barr T.L. Malloch K. Ackerman M.H. Raderstorf T. Melnyk B.M. A blueprint for nursing innovation centers. framework, the value of the conversation about nursing innovation cannot be overstated, and it must include diverse voices from different health systems, colleges, and universities. In this commentary, we share the experience of our innovation program that is similar in many ways, but different in others, from the experiences of the nursing innovation centers and programs highlighted in Barr and colleagues' blueprint for nursing innovation centers. While a blueprint is, undoubtedly, informative, there may not be a one size fits all model for nursing innovation programs. Traditional four-year nursing schools with a robust innovation ecosystem may choose a different model than commuter schools or community colleges who do not have the same resources. Sharing diverse models of fostering innovation in schools and colleges of nursing is necessary in order to continue to advance nursing in the multidisciplinary innovation ecosystem.This conversation also needs to extend globally to include our colleagues at schools of nursing in diverse contexts and communities, who are also infusing innovation in curricular and extra-curricular opportunities (Nguyen et al., 2021

Nguyen, P., Ahn, R., Lori, J., & Munro-Kramer, M. (2021). Innovate 4 Change – The future is now: Student nurses as innovators. LINKS Magazine 2021, published by The Global Network of WHO Collaborating Centres for Nursing & Midwifery, December 2021, 23-24. Accessed January 20, 2022. https://globalnetworkwhocc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Links-Dec-2021_Final.pdf

). Communication and collaboration among nursing innovation programs will continue to elevate the recognition among our students, faculty, and clinicians.Authors Contributions

OY: Conceptualization; Writing: Original Draft, Reviewing and Editing

MM: Conceptualization; Writing: Reviewing and Editing.

MC: Conceptualization, Writing: Reviewing and Editing

AF: Conceptualization, Writing: Reviewing and Editing

ReferencesBarr T.L. Malloch K. Ackerman M.H. Raderstorf T. Melnyk B.M.

A blueprint for nursing innovation centers.

Nursing Outlook. 69: 969-981https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2021.05.006

Nguyen, P., Ahn, R., Lori, J., & Munro-Kramer, M. (2021). Innovate 4 Change – The future is now: Student nurses as innovators. LINKS Magazine 2021, published by The Global Network of WHO Collaborating Centres for Nursing & Midwifery, December 2021, 23-24. Accessed January 20, 2022. https://globalnetworkwhocc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Links-Dec-2021_Final.pdf

Yakusheva O. Fitzsimons A.

We just jumped.

Practice-Policy Innovation Blog. American Nurses Association, ()Article InfoPublication History

Published online: May 05, 2022

Accepted: February 15, 2022

Received: January 28, 2022

Identification

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2022.02.004

Copyright

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ScienceDirectAccess this article on ScienceDirect Related Articles