Search

Abstract 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.

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.

Abstract Background Historically, efforts to improved healthcare provisions have focussed on learning from and understanding what went wrong during adverse events. More recently, however, there has been a growing interest in seeking to improve healthcare quality through promoting and strengthening resilience in healthcare, in light of the range of changes and challenges to which healthcare providers are subjected. So far, several approaches for strengthening resilience performance have been suggested, such as reflection and simulation. However, there is a lack of studies that appraise the range of existing learning tools, the purposes for which they are designed, and the types of learning activities they comprise. The aim of this rapid scoping review is to identify the characteristics of currently available learning tools designed to translate organizational resilience into healthcare practice. Methods A rapid scoping review approach was used to identify, collect, and synthesise information describing the characteristics of currently available learning tools designed to translate organizational resilience into healthcare practice. EMBASE and Medline Ovid were searched in May 2022 for articles published between 2012 and 2022. Results The review identified six different learning tools such as serious games and checklists to guide reflection, targeting different stakeholders, in various healthcare settings. The tools, typically, promoted self-reflection either individually or collaboratively in groups. Evaluations of these tools found them to be useful and supportive of resilience; however, what constitutes resilience was often difficult to discern, particularly the organizational aspect. It became evident from these studies that careful planning and support were needed for their successful implementation. Conclusions The tools that are available for review are based on guidelines, checklists, or serious games, all of which offer to prompt either self-reflection or group reflections related to different forms of adaptations that are being performed. In this paper, we propose that more guided reflections mirroring the complexity of resilience in healthcare, along with an interprofessional collaborative and guided approach, are needed for these tools to be enacted effectively to realise change in practice. Future studies also need to explore how tools are perceived, used, and understood in multi-site, multi-level studies with a range of different participants.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background Theories of learning are of clear importance to resilience in healthcare since the ability to successfully adapt and improve patient care is closely linked to the ability to understand what happens and why. Learning from both positive and negative events is crucial. While several tools and approaches for learning from adverse events have been developed, tools for learning from successful events are scarce. Theoretical anchoring, understanding of learning mechanisms, and establishing foundational principles for learning in resilience are pivotal strategies when designing interventions to develop or strengthen resilient performance. The resilient healthcare literature has called for resilience interventions, and new tools to translate resilience into practice have emerged but without necessarily stipulating foundational learning principles. Unless learning principles are anchored in the literature and based on research evidence, successful innovation in the field is unlikely to occur. The aim of this paper is to explore: What are key learning principles for developing learning tools to help translate resilience into practice? Methods This paper reports on a two-phased mixed methods study which took place over a 3-year period. A range of data collection and development activities were conducted including a participatory approach which involved iterative workshops with multiple stakeholders in the Norwegian healthcare system. Results In total, eight learning principles were generated which can be used to help develop learning tools to translate resilience into practice. The principles are grounded in stakeholder needs and experiences and in the literature. The principles are divided into three groups: collaborative, practical, and content elements. Conclusions The establishment of eight learning principles that aim to help develop tools to translate resilience into practice. In turn, this may support the adoption of collaborative learning approaches and the establishment of reflexive spaces which acknowledge system complexity across contexts. They demonstrate easy usability and relevance to practice.

IntroductionIt is common practice to use objects to bridge disciplines and develop shared understanding across knowledge boundaries. Objects for knowledge mediation provide a point of reference which allows for the translation of abstract concepts into more externalized representations. This study reports from an intervention that introduced an unfamiliar resilience perspective in healthcare, through the use of a resilience in healthcare (RiH) learning tool. The aim of this paper is to explore how a RiH learning tool may be used as an object for introduction and translation of a new perspective across different healthcare settings.MethodsThis study is based on empirical observational data, collected throughout an intervention to test a RiH learning tool, developed as part of the Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) program. The intervention took place between September 2022 and January 2023. The intervention was tested in 20 different healthcare units, including hospitals, nursing homes and home care services. A total of 15 workshops were carried out, including 39-41 participants in each workshop round. Throughout the intervention, data was gathered in all 15 workshops at the different organizational sites. Observation notes from each workshop make up the data set for this study. The data was analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.Results and conclusionThe RiH learning tool served as different forms of objects during the introduction of the unfamiliar resilience perspective for healthcare professionals. It provided a means to develop shared reflection, understanding, focus, and language for the different disciplines and settings involved. The resilience tool acted as a boundary object for the development of shared understanding and language, as an epistemic object for the development of shared focus and as an activity object within the shared reflection sessions. Enabling factors for the internalization of the unfamiliar resilience perspective were to provide active facilitation of the workshops, repeated explanation of unfamiliar concepts, provide relatedness to own context, and promote psychological safety in the workshops. Overall, observations from the testing of the RiH learning tool showed how these different objects were crucial in making tacit knowledge explicit, which is key to improve service quality and promote learning processes in healthcare.

Abstract Background To provide high quality services in increasingly complex, constantly changing circumstances, healthcare organizations worldwide need a high level of resilience, to adapt and respond to challenges and changes at all system levels. For healthcare organizations to strengthen their resilience, a significant level of continuous learning is required. Given the interdependence required amongst healthcare professionals and stakeholders when providing healthcare, this learning needs to be collaborative, as a prerequisite to operationalizing resilience in healthcare. As particular elements of collaborative working, and learning are likely to promote resilience, there is a need to explore the underlying collaborative learning mechanisms and how and why collaborations occur during adaptations and responses. The aim of this study is to describe collaborative learning processes in relation to resilient healthcare based on an investigation of narratives developed from studies representing diverse healthcare contexts and levels. Methods The method used to develop understanding of collaborative learning across diverse healthcare contexts and levels was to first conduct a narrative inquiry of a comprehensive dataset of published health services research studies. This resulted in 14 narratives (70 pages), synthesised from a total of 40 published articles and 6 PhD synopses. The narratives where then analysed using a thematic meta-synthesis approach. Results The results show that, across levels and contexts, healthcare professionals collaborate to respond and adapt to change, maintain processes and functions, and improve quality and safety. This collaboration comprises activities and interactions such as exchanging information, coordinating, negotiating, and aligning needs and developing buffers. The learning activities embedded in these collaborations are both activities of daily work, such as discussions, prioritizing and delegation of tasks, and intentional educational activities such as seminars or simulation activities. Conclusions Based on these findings, we propose that the enactment of resilience in healthcare is dependent on these collaborations and learning processes, across different levels and contexts. A systems perspective of resilience demands collaboration and learning within and across all system levels. Creating space for reflection and awareness through activities of everyday work, could support individual, team and organizational learning.

Abstract Background Despite an emerging consensus on the importance of resilience as a framework for understanding the healthcare system, the operationalization of resilience in healthcare has become an area of continuous discussion, and especially so when seeking operationalization across different healthcare contexts and healthcare levels. Different indicators for resilience in healthcare have been proposed by different researchers, where some indicators are coincident, some complementary, and some diverging. The overall aim of this article is to contribute to this discussion by synthesizing knowledge and experiences from studies in different healthcare contexts and levels to provide holistic understanding of capacities for resilience in healthcare. Methods This study is a part of the first exploratory phase of the Resilience in Healthcare programme. The exploratory phase has focused on screening, synthesising, and validating results from existing empirical projects covering a variety of healthcare settings. We selected the sample from several former and ongoing research projects across different contexts and levels, involving researchers from SHARE, the Centre for Resilience in Healthcare in Norway. From the included projects, 16 researchers participated in semi-structured interviews. The dataset was analysed in accordance with grounded theory. Results Ten different capacities for resilience in healthcare emerged from the dataset, presented here according to those with the most identified instances to those with the least: Structure, Learning, Alignment, Coordination, Leadership, Risk awareness, Involvement, Competence, Facilitators and Communication. All resilience capacities are interdependent, so effort should not be directed at achieving success according to improving just a single capacity but rather at being equally aware of the importance and interrelatedness of all the resilience in healthcare capacities. Conclusions A conceptual framework where the 10 different resilience capacities are presented in terms of contextualisation and collaboration was developed. The framework provides the understanding that all resilience capacities are associated with contextualization, or collaboration, or both, and thereby contributes to theorization and guidance for tailoring, making operationalization efforts for the identified resilience capacities in knowledge translation. This study therefore contributes with key insight for intervention development which is currently lacking in the literature.

Abstract Background Adaptation and innovation are both described as instrumental for resilience in healthcare. However, the relatedness between these dimensions of resilience in healthcare has not yet been studied. This study seeks to develop a conceptual understanding of adaptation and innovation as a basis for resilience in healthcare. The overall aim of this study is therefore to explore how adaptation and innovation can be described and understood across different healthcare settings. To this end, the overall aim will be investigated by identifying what constitutes adaptation and innovation in healthcare, the mechanisms involved, and what type of responses adaptation and innovation are associated with. Methods The method used to develop understanding across a variety of healthcare contexts, was to first conduct a narrative inquiry of a comprehensive dataset from various empirical settings (e.g., maternity, transitional care, telecare), that were later analysed in accordance with grounded theory. Narrative inquiry provided a contextually informed synthesis of the phenomenon, while the use of grounded theory methodology allowed for cross-contextual comparison of adaptation and innovation in terms of resilience in healthcare. Results The results identified an imbalance between adaptation and innovation. If short-term adaptations are used too extensively, they may mask system deficiencies and furthermore leave the organization vulnerable, by relying too much on the efforts of a few individuals. Hence, short-term adaptations may end up a barrier for resilience in healthcare. Long-term adaptations and innovation of products, processes and practices proved to be of a lower priority, but had the potential of addressing the flaws of the system by proactively re-organizing and re-designing routines and practices. Conclusions This study develops a new conceptual account of adaptation and innovation as a basis for resilience in healthcare. Findings emerging from this study indicate that a balance between adaptation and innovation should be sought when seeking resilience in healthcare. Adaptations can furthermore be divided into short-term and long-term adaptations, creating the need to balance between these different types of adaptations. Short-term adaptations that adopt the pattern of firefighting can risk generating complex and unintended outcomes, but where no significant changes are made to organization of the system. Long-term adaptations, on the other hand, introduce re-organization of the system based on feedback, and therefore can provide a proactive response to system deficiencies. We propose a pattern of adaptation in resilience in healthcare: from short-term adjustments, to long-term reorganizations, to innovations.

Objective and setting National, system-wide safety investigation represents a new approach to safety improvement in healthcare. In 2019, a new master’s level course in Safety Investigation in Healthcare was established to support the training and development of a new team of investigators from an independent investigatory body. The course was established at one Norwegian university and a total of 19 students were enrolled and completed the course. The aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the course, and the objectives were to explore the students’ needs and expectations prior to the course conduct, and their experiences and suggestions for improvements after course completion.Design The study design was a qualitative explorative study with individual and focus group interviews. Data collection included five individual interviews prior to course participation and two focus group interviews, after course participation, with a total sample size of 13 participants. Data were analysed according to thematic analysis.Results The results showed a need for a common conceptual foundation for the multidisciplinary team of safety investigators who were all employed in the same investigatory body. Course participation contributed to create reflexive spaces for the participants and generated new knowledge about the need for a broad range of investigatory tools and approaches. This contrasted with the initial aspiration among the participants to have a recipe for how to conduct safety investigations.Conclusions Course participation contributed to a common language among a highly multidisciplinary group of safety investigators and supported building a culture of collaborative learning. The need for additional activities to further develop a safety investigation curriculum in healthcare was identified. It is recommended that such a curriculum be co-created with independent investigators, safety scientists, patients and users, and healthcare professionals to ensure a strong methods repertoire and a sound theoretical backdrop for investigatory practice.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Introduction Resilience in healthcare (RiH) can be conceptualised as the adaptive capacities of a healthcare system that allow it to maintain the delivery of high-quality care during and after events that challenge, change or disrupt its activities. These adaptive capacities require collaborative learning and working, as the complexities of changes and challenges can rarely be addressed by individuals alone or single healthcare disciplinary knowledge. So, there is a need to understand how collaborative learning practices can be developed and supported both intra and inter disciplinary in healthcare. The aim of the study is to explore the relationship between collaborative learning, and resilience to establish a framework that supports the development and application of adaptive capacities across diverse healthcare contexts and levels. Collaborative learning is premised on learning as something that occurs continuously through everyday work in the healthcare systems as professionals engaging in clinical work, and interacting with other coworkers, patients and stakeholders making local adaptations in respond to needs.Method and analysis The study applies a mixed methods design in a two-phased approach to explore and develop the relationship between collaborative learning and resilience. Phase One is exploratory using literature review, meta-synthesis, interviews and focus groups as data collection methods in empirical studies in different healthcare contexts. Phase Two uses participatory approach to develop and test a collaborative learning framework followed by an evaluation to appraise its utility using observation and focus groups as data collection procedures.Ethics and dissemination Phase One of the study is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 864334). The findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, presentations at international conferences and through social media and popular press. This includes establishing a set of learning tools for adaptive use, that is made publicly available in Open Access repositories.