Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a process model on how mindfully performed organisational routines can simultaneously enable organisational stability and organisational change. Design/methodology/approach Via conceptual analysis, the authors develop several propositions and a process model integrating the theory of mindfulness and performative aspects of organisational routines with organisational stability and change. To do so, the authors review the literature on organisational routines, mindfulness, stability, inertia and change. Findings First, the authors demonstrate that, based on levels of mindfulness employed, performative aspects of organisational routines can be categorised as mindless, mindful and collectively mindful (meta-routines). Second, in the process model, the authors position the mindless performance of routines as enabling organisational stability, mediated through inertial pressure and disabling change, mediated through constrained change capacities. Finally, the authors state that engaging routines with mindfulness at an individual (mindful routines) or collective (meta-routines) level reduces inertia and facilitates change. Such simultaneous engagement leads to either sustaining stability when required or implementing continuous organisational change. Research limitations/implications The framework uses continuous, versus episodic, change; future research can consider the model’s workability with episodic change. Future research can also seek to empirically validate the model. The authors hope that this model informs research in organisational change and provides guidance on addressing organisational inertia. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to categorise the performative aspects of organisational routine based on the extent of mindfulness employed and propose that mindfulness-based practice of routines stimulates either inertia-induced or inertia-free stability and continuous change.

Introduction: Although the precise aetiology of meconium-stained amniotic fluid is still unclear, risk factors include advanced gestational age at delivery, mode of delivery, the prolonged second stage of labour, and intrauterine infection. It has been associated with poor perinatal outcomes including low Apgar scores, increased incidence of neonatal intensive care admission, and a high rate of perinatal death. The objective of the study was to find out the prevalence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid in term deliveries in a tertiary care centre. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was done among term deliveries in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in a tertiary care centre from inpatient records starting from 1 November 2019 to 1 November 2020 after obtaining ethical approval from the Institutional Review Committee (Reference number: PMG1911281316). Convenience sampling was done. Point estimate and 95% Confidence Interval were calculated. Results: Out of 1699 term deliveries, meconium-stained amniotic fluid was seen in 91 (5.35%) (4.28-6.42, 95% Confidence Interval). Among these 69 (75.82%) newborns were delivered through lower segment caesarean section and 61 (67%) newborns had Grade II meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Conclusions: The prevalence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid was similar to the studies done in similar settings.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract