Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Guise V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10882781 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Guise Veslemøy V Chambers Mary M Lyng Hilda Bø HB Haraldseid-Driftland Cecilie C Schibevaag Lene L Fagerdal Birte B Dombestein Heidi H Ree Eline E Wiig Siri S

BMC health services research 20240222 1

<h4>Background</h4>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. Th ...[more]

PMID: 38388408

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsTen 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.ConclusionsA 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.

Project description:BackgroundResilience, in the field of Resilience Engineering, has been identified as the ability to maintain the safety and the performance of healthcare systems and is aligned with the resilience potentials of anticipation, monitoring, adaptation, and learning. In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic challenged the resilience of US healthcare systems due to the lack of equipment, supply interruptions, and a shortage of personnel. The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe resilience in the healthcare team during the COVID-19 pandemic with the healthcare team situated as a cognizant, singular source of knowledge and defined by its collective identity, purpose, competence, and actions, versus the resilience of an individual or an organization.MethodsWe developed a descriptive model which considered the healthcare team as a unified cognizant entity within a system designed for safe patient care. This model combined elements from the Patient Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) and the Advanced Team Decision Making (ADTM) models. Using a qualitative descriptive design and guided by our adapted model, we conducted individual interviews with healthcare team members across the United States. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and extracted codes were organized within the adapted model framework.ResultsFive themes were identified from the interviews with acute care professionals across the US (N = 22): teamwork in a pressure cooker, consistent with working in a high stress environment; healthcare team cohesion, applying past lessons to present challenges, congruent with transferring past skills to current situations; knowledge gaps, and altruistic behaviors, aligned with sense of duty and personal responsibility to the team. Participants' described how their ability to adapt to their environment was negatively impacted by uncertainty, inconsistent communication of information, and emotions of anxiety, fear, frustration, and stress. Cohesion with co-workers, transferability of skills, and altruistic behavior enhanced healthcare team performance.ConclusionWorking within the extreme unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19 affected the ability of the healthcare team to anticipate and adapt to the rapidly changing environment. Both team cohesion and altruistic behavior promoted resilience. Our research contributes to a growing understanding of the importance of resilience in the healthcare team. And provides a bridge between individual and organizational resilience.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary mental healthcare (PMHC) allows for complex mental health issues in old age to be addressed. India has sought to improve PMHC through legislation, strategies and programmes. This study analyses the challenges and opportunities involved in strengthening PMHC for older persons in India from the perspectives of key stakeholders.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholders selected from the PMHC system in India and analysed using thematic analysis. First, the analysis was organizationally structured in accordance with the six WHO mental health system domains: (1) policy and legislative framework, (2) mental health services, (3) mental health in primary care, (4) human resources, (5) public information and links to other sectors, and (6) monitoring and research. Second, for each building block, challenges and opportunities were derived using inductive coding.ResultsThis study highlights the numerous challenges that may be encountered when attempting to strengthen age-inclusive PMHC. Among these challenges are poor public governance, a lack of awareness and knowledge among policy-makers and other stakeholders, and existing policies that make unrealistic promises to weak primary healthcare (PHC) structures with an excessive focus on medicalizing mental health problems. Thus, the mental health system often fails to reach vulnerable older people through PHC. Established approaches to comprehensive, family- and community-oriented PHC support attempts to strengthen intersectoral approaches to PMHC that emphasize mental health promotion in old age. Targeting the PHC workforce through age-inclusive mental health education is considered particularly necessary. Experts further argue that adequate monitoring structures and public spending for mental health must be improved.ConclusionsIn this study, we aim to elaborate on the mental healthcare developments that may serve to achieve equity in access to mental healthcare in India. Coordinated and collaborative efforts by public and private stakeholders involved in the care of older persons, both with and without lived mental health experiences, as well as their families and communities, are necessary to bring the vision of those policies for PMHC to fruition. The findings presented in this study can also inform future research, policies and practice in other low- and middle-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundTo 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsBased 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.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past three decades, allocation of foreign currency subsidies has been the primary strategy of various administrations in Iran to improve access to medicines. This strategy has resulted in several challenges, including stakeholder conflicts of interest.ObjectiveTo identify the power, interest, and role of the stakeholders in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines in the Iranian health system.MethodsIn this qualitative study, 39 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key informants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. The theoretical framework adopted by Varvasovszky and Brugha was employed. The data were analysed using directed content analysis.ResultsThe foreign currency subsidy for medicines included 21 stakeholders in five main categories: governmental organizations, Iranian Parliament, general population, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the pharmaceutical industry. Stakeholders varied in their level of participation and support in the policy-making process. Among them, the Iranian Government, Planning and Budget Organization, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME), and Iran Food and Drug Administration (IFDA) were the most important stakeholders, with highly supportive positions, while domestic drug manufacturers were the strongest opponents of this policy. The Government of Iran is the most powerful institution with regard to the ability to allocate foreign currency subsidies to medicines, followed by the MoHME and the IFDA.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that identifying and analysing the stakeholders involved in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines can provide valuable information for policy-makers to enable a more comprehensive understanding and better capacity to determine whether or not to eliminate these subsidies. Moreover, decision-making in this process is a long-term issue that requires consensus among all stakeholders. Because of the political and social consequences of eliminating foreign currency subsidies, the necessary political will is not institutionalized. We recommend a step-by-step approach in eliminating foreign currency subsidies if the requirements are met (i.e., those related to the consequences of such interventions). Therefore, revision of the current policy along with these requirements, in addition to financial transparency and enhanced efficiency, will facilitate progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by improving access to medicines.

Project description:BackgroundThis study consisted of a qualitative exploration of stakeholder experience regarding the implementation of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) as part of routine service provision within the UK's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program.MethodsStakeholder groups included service providers (n = 6), commercial iCBT representatives (n = 6) and patients who received a course of iCBT as part of treatment at the service (n = 7). Participants took part in a semi-structured interview over the telephone, and subsequent data were qualitatively analyzed using the descriptive-interpretive approach.ResultsService providers highlighted the importance of effective leadership and management, training initiatives, the provision of feedback to commercial iCBT representatives and creating work structures around iCBT to facilitate iCBT supporting staff in their use of it. Commercial iCBT representatives similarly reported the importance of training clinicians in iCBT use, identifying the appropriate individuals at all levels of the service to drive iCBT implementation, and the importance of being responsive to any problems or needs that arise from the service. Patients reported an overall positive experience of receiving iCBT but highlighted a need for more information from their supporter and the intervention to better structure their usage. Contextual factors, in terms of barriers and facilitators, were also highlighted by service provider and commercial participants; citing negative clinician attitudes and technological issues/bugs as barriers to implementation, and the exposure to iCBT created by COVID-19 and perseverance in using iCBT over time as facilitators.DiscussionThe findings contribute to a growing field of literature that seeks to understand the experience of relevant stakeholders who are involved with and contribute to iCBT implementation, including commercial iCBT representatives who, to our knowledge, have not been accounted for as part of published research to date.

Project description:BackgroundReusing health data, for example for research into the quality of care or healthcare planning, has far-reaching potential. Current ethical discussions on developing health data platforms (e.g. the German Medical Informatics Initiative, MII) have primarily addressed patient-related benefits and risks of reusing this data. Less is known about the perspectives of healthcare providers, such as hospitals, that make health data available through these platforms. However, the risks they perceive and a resulting reluctance to share data, along with the lack of strategies for managing these risks, could significantly impede research with health data. In this exploratory qualitative study, we investigated the interests and risks relevant to healthcare providers in the secondary use of health data, and strategies to address these risks (pre-registration: https://osf.io/uxds ).MethodsWe conducted online expert interviews (N = 21) between May and August 2023 with German representatives of different stakeholder groups (e.g. healthcare providers, researchers, patient representatives, data protection officers) with expertise in the secondary use of health data and the associated interests and risks for providers. We analysed the data using the deductive-inductive approach to qualitative content analysis.ResultsInterviewees attributed several potentials reusing health data, such as improving healthcare quality and transparency. They also pointed to risks, including their causes and consequences for providers' reputation, economic and existential situation. Risks included a) biased results and interpretation of data analyses due to inadequate data validity and inappropriate analytical approaches, b) questionable reuse purposes, c) liability risks due to a lack of control over shared data and unresolved legal questions, and d) improved transparency that may reveal challenges and misconduct in healthcare. Suggested strategies for risk mitigation related to use and access decisions on secondary use requests. These include a) developing risk-reducing policies, b) ensuring transparent decision-making processes by involving all relevant stakeholders and applying structured risk-benefit assessments, and c) measures to improve the validity of secondary analyses. In addition, the interviewees identified further need for action to be addressed by providers, researchers and policymakers.ConclusionThese findings point to needs and opportunities for action to manage risks that providers associate with health data reuse. Decision-making processes on secondary use requests should be based on normative principles, and quality, safety and trust in health data reuse should be enhanced. These recommendations should be taken up by responsible stakeholders in initiatives such as the MII, among researchers and policymakers to reduce reluctance and promote research with health data.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets