The Reality of Uncertainty in Mental Health Care Settings Seeking Professional Integration: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Introduction: Uncertainty is a common experience in the complex adaptive health system, particularly amongst mental health professionals structured for the delivery of integrated care. Increased understanding of uncertainty will not necessarily make things more certain, but can act to sensitize professionals to the challenges they face. The aim of this study is to examine the types and situations of uncertainty experienced by professionals working in a mental health setting based on an integrated care model. The research assesses the impact of experience and professional group on reported uncertainties. Methods: First, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with clinical and non-clinical staff to examine uncertainties experienced by professionals working in 'headspace' centres in Australia. Second, an online survey was conducted to quantify the experiences of uncertainty and explore associations. Results: Findings revealed three overarching and largely interrelated aspects of uncertainty, namely: decision-making; professional role; and external factors. Most commonly, staff reported experiences of uncertainty pertaining to deciding to accept a client into the service and then deciding how to treat them. This is often due to arbitrary, or overly-restrictive criteria in integrated care. Findings also suggested that uncertainty does not necessarily decline with experience and there were no significant differences in levels of uncertainty between clinical and non-clinical staff. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of acknowledging uncertainties and actively clarifying role ambiguities when working alongside diverse professionals in mental health care

International survey of COVID-19 management strategies

Background: While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. Methods: From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. Results: A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. Conclusion: The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures

Real Talk: A Realist Dialogic Approach in a Realist Evaluation

Realist evaluation is a method increasingly adopted to provide an understanding of how and why a program works, for whom, and under what circumstances. Initial program theories (IPT) are the crucial starting point of any realist evaluation, however descriptions about how they are developed in practice remain under-reported in the published literature. This article argues for the value of genuine research-group conversations using David Bohm’s concept of dialogue in realist research. We label it the realist dialogic approach. We draw out the relational qualities as well as the contextual circumstances of dialogue through our development of IPT and interview guides for a research study on the implementation and scaling of a large-system value-based program to transform complex health services. We selected the relevant middle-range theories, conducted a literature review, and drew on informal discussions with key stakeholders, to develop IPT through research-group conversations. The benefits of this approach were: 1) development of rigorous, novel, deep and well-tailored IPT, 2) detailed understanding of the complex intervention under investigation and development of rapport and networks with participants, 3) empirically grounded Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations, predicated on suitable abstract and contextually-contingent middle-range theories, and 4) productive research team interactions which supported the entire research process. The challenges of this approach include: 1) establishing and retaining a sense of humility across the research team, 2) contextual circumstances can hinder dialogic relationship, and 3) time and resource heavy. This paper uses middle-range theory and ethnographic insights to advance the existing practice of realist evaluations and offer transferable lessons to other scholars considering similar approaches. Moreover, we content that the use of middle-range theory to extend the methodological literature is a novel contribution to realist work

Systems resilience in the implementation of a large-scale suicide prevention intervention: a qualitative study using a multilevel theoretical approach

Background Resilience, the capacity to adapt and respond to challenges and disturbances, is now considered fundamental to understanding how healthcare systems maintain required levels of performance across varying conditions. Limited research has examined healthcare resilience in the context of implementing healthcare improvement programs across multiple system levels, particularly within community-based mental health settings or systems. In this study, we explored resilient characteristics across varying system levels (individual, team, management) during the implementation of a large-scale community-based suicide prevention intervention. Methods Semi-structured interviews (n=53) were conducted with coordinating teams from the four intervention regions and the central implementation management team. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo for analysis. A thematic analysis of eight transcripts involving thirteen key personnel was conducted using a deductive approach to identify characteristics of resilience across multiple system levels and an inductive approach to uncover both impediments to, and strategies that supported, resilient performance during the implementation of the suicide prevention intervention. Results Numerous impediments to resilient performance were identified (e.g., complexity of the intervention, and incompatible goals and priorities between system levels). Consistent with the adopted theoretical framework, indicators of resilient performance relating to anticipation, sensemaking, adaptation and tradeoffs were identified at multiple system levels. At each of the system levels, distinctive strategies were identified that promoted resilience. At the individual and team levels, several key strategies were used by the project coordinators to promote resilience, such as building relationships and networks and carefully prioritising available resources. At the management level, strategies included teambuilding, collaborative learning, building relationships with external stakeholders, monitoring progress and providing feedback. The results also suggested that resilience at one level can shape resilience at other levels in complex ways; most notably we identified that there can be a downside to resilience, with negative consequences including stress and burnout, among individuals enacting resilience. Conclusions The importance of considering resilience from a multilevel systems perspective, as well as implications for theory and future research, are discussed.publishedVersio

Monitoring health inequalities: life expectancy and small area deprivation in New Zealand

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in health are of great concern, and life expectancy provides a readily understood means of monitoring such inequalities. The objectives of this study are to (1) measure life expectancy by socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, and (2) describe trends in the deprivation gradient in life expectancy since the mid-1990s. METHODS: Three years of national mortality data have been combined with mid-point population denominators to produce life tables within nationally determined levels of small area deprivation (NZDep96) for three ethnic group: European, Mäori and Pacific peoples. This process has been repeated for the periods 1995–97, 1996–98, 1997–99 and 1998–2000. RESULTS: There was a strong relationship between increasing small area deprivation and decreasing life expectancy. Through the mid- to late 1990s, males living in the most deprived small areas in New Zealand experienced life expectancies at birth approximately nine years less than their counterparts living in the least deprived areas; for females the corresponding difference was under seven years. Mäori and Pacific life expectancies at birth were lower than those of Europeans at each level of deprivation. Over the study period (1995–2000) the gradient in life expectancy across deprivation deciles remained stable. CONCLUSION: Small area deprivation analyses of life expectancy could be repeated routinely at regular intervals, which would provide a useful approach to monitoring trends in socioeconomic, geographic, ethnic and gender inequalities in mortality

Four System Enablers of Large‐System Transformation in Health Care: A Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation

Abstract Policy Points The implementation of large-scale health care interventions relies on a shared vision, commitment to change, coordination across sites, and a spanning of siloed knowledge. Enablers of the system should include building an authorizing environment; providing relevant, meaningful, transparent, and timely data; designating and distributing leadership and decision making; and fostering the emergence of a learning culture. Attention to these four enablers can set up a positive feedback loop to foster positive change that can protect against the loss of key staff, the presence of lone disruptors, and the enervating effects of uncertainty. Context Large-scale transformative initiatives have the potential to improve the quality, efficiency, and safety of health care. However, change is expensive, complex, and difficult to implement and sustain. This paper advances system enablers, which will help to guide large-scale transformation in health care systems. Methods A realist study of the implementation of a value-based health care program between 2017 and 2021 was undertaken in every public hospital (n = 221) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Four data sources were used to elucidate initial program theories beginning with a set of literature reviews, a program document review, and informal discussions with key stakeholders. Semistructured interviews were then conducted with 56 stakeholders to confirm, refute, or refine the theories. A retroductive analysis produced a series of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) statements. Next, the CMOs were validated with three health care quality expert panels (n = 51). Synthesized data were interrogated to distill the overarching system enablers. Findings Forty-two CMO statements from the eight initial program theory areas were developed, refined, and validated. Four system enablers were identified: (1) build an authorizing environment; (2) provide relevant, authentic, timely, and meaningful data; (3) designate and distribute leadership and decision making; and (4) support the emergence of a learning culture. The system enablers provide a nuanced understanding of large-system transformation that illustrates when, for whom, and in what circumstances large-system transformation worked well or worked poorly. Conclusions System enablers offer nuanced guidance for the implementation of large-scale health care interventions. The four enablers may be portable to similar contexts and provide the empirical basis for an implementation model of large-system value-based health care initiatives. With concerted application, these findings can pave the way not just for a better understanding of greater or lesser success in intervening in health care settings but ultimately to contribute higher quality, higher value, and safer care

Implementing large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives: a realist study protocol for seven natural experiments

IntroductionValue-based healthcare delivery models have emerged to address the unprecedented pressure on long-term health system performance and sustainability and to respond to the changing needs and expectations of patients. Implementing and scaling the benefits from these care delivery models to achieve large-system transformation are challenging and require consideration of complexity and context. Realist studies enable researchers to explore factors beyond ‘what works’ towards more nuanced understanding of ‘what tends to work for whom under which circumstances’. This research proposes a realist study of the implementation approach for seven large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia, to elucidate how different implementation strategies and processes stimulate the uptake, adoption, fidelity and adherence of initiatives to achieve sustainable impacts across a variety of contexts.Methods and analysisThis exploratory, sequential, mixed methods realist study followed RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) reporting standards for realist studies. Stage 1 will formulate initial programme theories from review of existing literature, analysis of programme documents and qualitative interviews with programme designers, implementation support staff and evaluators. Stage 2 envisages testing and refining these hypothesised programme theories through qualitative interviews with local hospital network staff running initiatives, and analyses of quantitative data from the programme evaluation, hospital administrative systems and an implementation outcome survey. Stage 3 proposes to produce generalisable middle-range theories by synthesising data from context–mechanism–outcome configurations across initiatives. Qualitative data will be analysed retroductively and quantitative data will be analysed to identify relationships between the implementation strategies and processes, and implementation and programme outcomes. Mixed methods triangulation will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by Macquarie University (Project ID 23816) and Hunter New England (Project ID 2020/ETH02186) Human Research Ethics Committees. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be fed back to partner organisations and roundtable discussions with other health jurisdictions will be held, to share learnings.</jats:sec