Next-of-Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part II: The Inspectors' Perspective)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore regulatory inspectors' experiences with a new method for next-of-kin involvement in investigation of adverse events causing patient death. A resilient healthcare perspective is used as the theoretical foundation. METHODS: The study design was a qualitative process evaluation of the new involvement method in 2 Norwegian counties. Next of kin, who had lost a close family member in an adverse event, were invited to a 2-hour face-to-face meeting with the inspectors. Data collection involved 3 focus group interviews with regulatory inspectors and observation (20 hours) of the meetings (2017-2018). Data were analyzed by a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Next-of-kin involvement informed the investigations by additional and new information about the adverse events and by different versions of the investigators' earlier obtained information, such as time sequences, what happened and how, and who were involved. Inspectors considered next of kin as a key source of information that contributed to improve the quality of the investigation. The downside was that the involvement method increased work load and could challenge the principle of equal treatment in regulatory practice. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of next of kin in regulatory investigation of adverse events causing patient death contributes to a better understanding of work as done in clinical practice and contributes to strengthen the learning potential in resilience

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries

Background In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice. Methods The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt. Results Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions. Conclusions Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard

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

Identifying, categorising, and mapping actors involved in resilience in healthcare: a qualitative stakeholder analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resilience in healthcare is the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes to maintain high-quality care across system levels. While healthcare system stakeholders such as patients, informal carers, healthcare professionals and service managers have all come to be acknowledged as important co-creators of resilient healthcare, our knowledge and understanding of who, how, and in which contexts different stakeholders come to facilitate and support resilience is still lacking. This study addresses gaps in the research by conducting a stakeholder analysis to identify and categorise the stakeholders that are key to facilitating and sustaining resilience in healthcare, and to investigate stakeholder relationships relevant for the enactment of resilient healthcare systems. METHODS: The stakeholder analysis was conducted using a sample of 19 empirical research projects. A narrative summary was written for 14 of the projects, based on publicly available material. In addition, 16 individual interviews were undertaken with researchers from the same sample of 19 projects. The 16 interview transcripts and 14 narratives made up the data material of the study. Application of stakeholder analysis methods was done in three steps: a) identification of stakeholders; b) differentiation and categorisation of stakeholders using an interest/influence grid; and c) investigation and mapping of stakeholder relationships using an actor-linkage matrix. RESULTS: Identified stakeholders were Patients, Family Carers, Healthcare Professionals, Ward/Unit Managers, Service or Case Managers, Regulatory Investigators, Policy Makers, and Other Service Providers. All identified stakeholders were categorised as either 'Subjects', 'Players', or 'Context Setters' according to their level of interest in and influence on resilient healthcare. Stakeholder relationships were mapped according to the degree and type of contact between the various groups of stakeholders involved in facilitating resilient healthcare, ranging from 'Not linked' to 'Fully linked'. CONCLUSION: Family carers and healthcare professionals were found to be the most active groups of stakeholders in the enactment of healthcare system resilience. Patients, managers, and policy makers also contribute to resilience to various degrees. Relationships between stakeholder groups are largely characterised by communication and coordination, in addition to formal collaborations where diverse actors work together to achieve common goals

Defining the boundaries and operational concepts of resilience in the resilience in healthcare research program

Background Understanding the resilience of healthcare is critically important. A resilient healthcare system might be expected to consistently deliver high quality care, withstand disruptive events and continually adapt, learn and improve. However, there are many different theories, models and definitions of resilience and most are contested and debated in the literature. Clear and unambiguous conceptual definitions are important for both theoretical and practical considerations of any phenomenon, and resilience is no exception. A large international research programme on Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) is seeking to address these issues in a 5-year study across Norway, England, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, and Switzerland (2018–2023). The aims of this debate paper are: 1) to identify and select core operational concepts of resilience from the literature in order to consider their contributions, implications, and boundaries for researching resilience in healthcare; and 2) to propose a working definition of healthcare resilience that underpins the international RiH research programme. Main text To fulfil these aims, first an overview of three core perspectives or metaphors that underpin theories of resilience are introduced from ecology, engineering and psychology. Second, we present a brief overview of key definitions and approaches to resilience applicable in healthcare. We position our research program with collaborative learning and user involvement as vital prerequisite pillars in our conceptualisation and operationalisation of resilience for maintaining quality of healthcare services. Third, our analysis addresses four core questions that studies of resilience in healthcare need to consider when defining and operationalising resilience. These are: resilience ‘for what’, ‘to what’, ‘of what’, and ‘through what’? Finally, we present our operational definition of resilience. Conclusion The RiH research program is exploring resilience as a multi-level phenomenon and considers adaptive capacity to change as a foundation for high quality care. We, therefore, define healthcare resilience as: the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes at different system levels, to maintain high quality care. This working definition of resilience is intended to be comprehensible and applicable regardless of the level of analysis or type of system component under investigation.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCFamily Practice, Department ofReviewedFacult

The rise of resilient healthcare research during COVID-19: scoping review of empirical research

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has presented many multi-faceted challenges to the maintenance of service quality and safety, highlighting the need for resilient and responsive healthcare systems more than ever before. This review examined empirical investigations of Resilient Health Care (RHC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to: identify key areas of research; synthesise findings on capacities that develop RHC across system levels (micro, meso, macro); and identify reported adverse consequences of the effort of maintaining system performance on system agents (healthcare workers, patients). Methods Three academic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) from 1st January 2020 to 30th August 2022 using keywords pertaining to: systems resilience and related concepts; healthcare and healthcare settings; and COVID-19. Capacities that developed and enhanced systems resilience were synthesised using a hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis. Results Fifty publications were included in this review. Consistent with previous research, studies from high-income countries and the use of qualitative methods within the context of hospitals, dominated the included studies. However, promising developments have been made, with an emergence of studies conducted at the macro-system level, including the development of quantitative tools and indicator-based modelling approaches, and the increased involvement of low- and middle-income countries in research (LMIC). Concordant with previous research, eight key resilience capacities were identified that can support, develop or enhance resilient performance, namely: structure, alignment, coordination, learning, involvement, risk awareness, leadership, and communication. The need for healthcare workers to constantly learn and make adaptations, however, had potentially adverse physical and emotional consequences for healthcare workers, in addition to adverse effects on routine patient care. Conclusions This review identified an upsurge in new empirical studies on health system resilience associated with COVID-19. The pandemic provided a unique opportunity to examine RHC in practice, and uncovered emerging new evidence on RHC theory and system factors that contribute to resilient performance at micro, meso and macro levels. These findings will enable leaders and other stakeholders to strengthen health system resilience when responding to future challenges and unexpected events