Resilience in Healthcare (RiH): a longitudinal research programme protocol.
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Over the past three decades, extensive research has been undertaken to understand the elements of what constitutes high quality in healthcare. Yet, much of this research has been conducted on individual elements and their specific challenges. Hence, goals other than understanding the complex of factors and elements that comprises quality in healthcare have been privileged. This lack of progress has led to the conclusion that existing approaches to research are not able to address the inherent complexity of healthcare systems as characterised by a significant degree of performance variability within and across system levels, and what makes them resilient. A shift is, therefore, necessary in such approaches. Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) adopts an approach comprising a comprehensive research programme that models the capacity of healthcare systems and stakeholders to adapt to changes, variations and/or disruptions: that is, resilience. As such, RiH offers a fresh approach capable of capturing and illuminating the complexity of healthcare and how high-quality care can be understood and advanced. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Methodologically, to illuminate what constitutes quality in healthcare, it is necessary to go beyond single-site, case-based studies. Instead, there is a need to engage in multi-site, cross-national studies and engage in long-term multidisciplinary collaboration between national and international researchers interacting with multiple healthcare stakeholders. By adopting such processes, multiple partners and a multidisciplinary orientation, the 5-year RiH research programme aims to confront these challenges and accelerate current understandings about and approaches to researching healthcare quality.The RiH research programme adopts a longitudinal collaborative interactive design to capture and illuminate resilience as part of healthcare quality in different healthcare settings in Norway and in five other countries. It combines a meta-analysis of detailed empirical research in Norway with cross-country comparison from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK. Through establishing an RiH framework, the programme will identify processes with outcomes that aim to capture how high-quality healthcare provisions are achieved. A collaborative learning framework centred on engagement aims to systematically translate research findings into practice through co-construction processes with partners and stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The RiH research programme is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (No. 864334). The empirical projects selected for inclusion in this longitudinal research programme have been approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data or the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. The RiH research programme has an embedded publication and dissemination strategy focusing on the progressive sharing of scientific knowledge, information and results, and on engaging with the public, including relevant patient and stakeholder representatives. The findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, PhD dissertations, presentations at national and international conferences, and through social media, newsletters and the popular media.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>Resilience in healthcare (RiH) is understood as the capacity of the healthcare system to adapt to challenges and changes at different system levels, to maintain high-quality care. Adaptive capacity is founded in the knowledge, skills and experiences of the people in the system, including patients, family or next of kin, healthcare providers, managers and regulators. In order to learn from and support useful adaptations, research is needed to better understand adaptive capacity and the nature and context of adaptations. This includes research on the actors involved in creating resilient healthcare, and how and in what circumstances different groups of patients and other key healthcare stakeholders enact adaptations that contribute to resilience across all levels of the healthcare system.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>This 5-year study applies an interactive design in a two-phased approach to explore and conceptualise patient and stakeholder involvement in resilient healthcare. Study phase 1 is exploratory and will use such data collection methods as literature review, document analysis, interviews and focus groups. Study phase 2 will use a participatory design approach to develop, test and evaluate a conceptual model for patient and stakeholder involvement in RiH. The study will involve patients and other key stakeholders as active participants throughout the research process.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>The RiH research programme of which this study is a part is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (No. 864334). Findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, presentations at national and international conferences, through social media and popular press, and by direct engagement with the public, including patient and stakeholder representatives.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>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.<h4>Method and analysis</h4>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.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>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.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Clinical quality registries (CQRs) can likely improve quality in healthcare and research. However, studies indicate that effective use of CQRs is hindered by lack of engagement and interest among stakeholders, as well as factors related to organisational context, registry design and data quality. To fulfil the potential of CQRs, more knowledge on stakeholders' perceptions of the factors that will facilitate or hamper the development of CQRs is essential to the more appropriate targeting of registry implementation and the subsequent use of the data. The primary aim of this study was to examine factors that can potentially affect the development of a national CQR for interventional radiology in Norway from the perspective of stakeholders. Furthermore, we wanted to identify the intervention functions likely to enable CQR development. Only one such registry, located in Sweden, has been established. To provide a broader context for the Norwegian study, we also sought to investigate experiences with the development of this registry.<h4>Methods</h4>A qualitative study of ten Norwegian radiologists and radiographers using focus groups was conducted, and an in-depth interview with the initiator of the Swedish registry was carried out. Questions were based on the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation for Behaviour Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. The participants' responses were categorised into predefined themes using a deductive process of thematic analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Knowledge of the rationale used in establishing a CQR, beliefs about the beneficial consequences of a registry for quality improvement and research and an opportunity to learn from a well-developed registry were perceived by the participants as factors facilitating CQR development. The study further identified a range of development barriers related to environmental and resource factors (e.g., a lack of organisational support, time) and individuallevel factors (e.g., role boundaries, resistance to change), as well as several intervention functions likely to be appropriate in targeting these barriers.<h4>Conclusion</h4>This study provides a deeper understanding of factors that may be involved in the behaviour of stakeholders regarding the development of a CQR. The findings may assist in designing, implementing and evaluating a methodologically rigorous CQR intervention.
Project description:<b>Introduction: </b>Resilient healthcare (RHC) is an emerging area of theory and applied research to understand how healthcare organisations cope with the dynamic, variable and demanding environments in which they operate, based on insights from complexity and systems theory. Understanding adaptive capacity has been a focus of RHC studies. Previous studies clearly show why adaptations are necessary and document the successful adaptive actions taken by clinicians. To our knowledge, however, no studies have thus far compared RHC across different teams and countries. There are gaps in the research knowledge related to the multilevel nature of resilience across healthcare systems and the team-based nature of adaptive capacity.This cross-country comparative study therefore aims to add knowledge of how resilience is enabled in diverse healthcare systems by examining adaptive capacity in hospital teams in six countries. The study will identify how team, organisational and national healthcare system factors support or hinder the ability of teams to adapt to variability and change. Findings from this study are anticipated to provide insights to inform the design of RHC systems by considering how macro-level and meso-level structures support adaptive capacity at the micro-level, and to develop guidance for organisations and policymakers.<br><br><b>Methods and analysis: </b>The study will employ a multiple comparative case study design of teams nested within hospitals, in turn embedded within six countries: Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The design will be based on the Adaptive Teams Framework placing adaptive teams at the centre of the healthcare system with layers of environmental, organisational and system level factors shaping adaptive capacity. In each of the six countries, a focused mapping of the macro-level features of the healthcare system will be undertaken by using documentary sources and interviews with key informants operating at the macro-level.A sampling framework will be developed to select two hospitals in each country to ensure variability based on size, location and teaching status. Four teams will be selected in each hospital-one each of a structural, hybrid, responsive and coordinating team. A total of eight teams will be studied in each country, creating a total sample of 48 teams. Data collection methods will be observations, interviews and document analysis. Within-case analysis will be conducted according to a standardised template using a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative coding, and cross-case analysis will be conducted drawing on the Qualitative Comparative Analysis framework.<br><br><b>Ethics and dissemination: </b>The overall Resilience in Healthcare research programme of which this study is a part has been granted ethical approval by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (Ref. No. 8643334 and Ref. No. 478838). Ethical approval will also be sought in each country involved in the study according to their respective regulatory procedures. Country-specific reports of study outcomes will be produced for dissemination online. A collection of case study summaries will be made freely available, translated into multiple languages. Brief policy communications will be produced to inform policymakers and regulators about the study results and to facilitate translation into practice. Academic dissemination will occur through publication in journals specialising in health services research. Findings will be presented at academic, policy and practitioner conferences, including the annual RHC Network meeting and other healthcare quality and safety conferences. Presentations at practitioner and academic conferences will include workshops to translate the findings into practice and influence quality and safety programmes internationally.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Responsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n=25). Following the Tool's 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study's database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet's AC) and the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool's application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics.<h4>Results</h4>Our findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, "almost perfect" agreement for 7 assessment attributes, "substantial" agreement for 2 attributes and "almost perfect" agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While "Almost all RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), "Many RIH features" were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and "Few RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points).<h4>Conclusion</h4>By confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool's reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation of the Norwegian government's Coordination Reform (2012) aims to decentralise health care services from centralised hospitals to local communities. Radiological services in Norway are mainly organised in hospitals, because of the significant financial and human resource demands engendered by the need for advanced technological equipment, and specialised staff. Some selected conventional x-ray services have been decentralised into rural communities. The purpose of this single case study was to highlight experiences from different stakeholders' of organising decentralised radiological services in a rural area in Norway. METHODS:A qualitative single case study design was adopted, collected data using focus groups with healthcare professionals and managers to obtain stakeholder's experiences of the radiological services in this rural area. The key emergent themes from the literature, decentralisation, quality, professional roles, organisation and economic consequences were discussed with each focus group. Thematic analysis was used for analyzing the primary data collected. RESULTS:Four main themes emerged from the focus groups: 1) organisation, 2) quality and safety, 3) funding of radiological services and 4) cooperation between health care professions and health care levels. It was found that the organisation of decentralised radiological services to rural areas is challenging because of the way health services are structured in Norway. The quality of service was found to be inadequate in some areas because of the superficial level of training given to non-radiographic staff. The experience is that the Norwegian funding system hinders an efficient decentralised health care service. Effective cooperation and responsibility between health care professions and levels was challenging. There needs to be improved co-working by clearly defining roles and responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS:A key recommendation for the organisation of rural radiological service was the development of a satellite link with an acute hospital. Quality of the service could be improved and should be given priority. Structural change to the financial system whereby money follows patients, might also facilitate more patientcentred services across healthcare levels. Improved mutual understanding between rural radiological services and hospital specialists and managers is important for a high quality and consistent radiological service to be delivered across Norway.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The relationship between quality and safety regulation and resilience in healthcare has received little systematic scrutiny. Accordingly, this study examines the introduction of a new regulatory framework (the Quality Improvement Regulation) in Norway that aimed to focus on developing the capacity of hospitals to continually improve quality and safety. The overall aim of the study was to explore the governmental rationale and expectations in relation to the Quality Improvement Regulation, and how it could potentially influence the management of resilience in hospitals. The study applies resilience in healthcare and risk regulation as theoretical perspectives. METHODS:The design is a single embedded case study, investigating the Norwegian regulatory healthcare regime. Data was collected by approaching three regulatory bodies through formal letters, asking them to provide internal and public documents, and by searching through open Internet-sources. Based on this, we conducted a document analysis, supplemented by interviews with seven strategic informants in the regulatory bodies. RESULTS:The rationale for introducing the Quality Improvement Regulation focused on challenges associated with implementation, lack of management competencies; need to promote quality improvement as a managerial responsibility. Some informants worried that the generic regulatory design made it less helpful for managers and clinicians, others claimed a non-detailed regulation was key to make it fit all hospital-contexts. The Government expected hospital managers to obtain an overview of risks and to adapt risk management and quality improvement measures to their specific context and activities. CONCLUSIONS:Based on the rationale of making the Quality Improvement Regulation flexible to hospital context, encouraging the ability to anticipate local risks, along with expectations about the generic design as challenging for managers and clinicians, we found that the regulators did consider work as done as important when designing the Quality Improvement Regulation. These perspectives are in line with ideas of resilience. However, the Quality Improvement Regulation might be open for adaptation by the regulatees, but this may not necessarily mean that it promotes or encourages adaptive behavior in actual practice. Limited involvement of clinicians in the regulatory development process and a lack of reflexive spaces might hamper quality improvement efforts.
Project description:<b>Background: </b>Migrant populations in the European Union (EU) suffer a disproportionate burden of infectious diseases and may be particularly vulnerable due to poor conditions in countries of origin or throughout transit to the host country. Given the rising level of migration into Europe, the vaccination of migrant populations has become a key priority, with European countries committing to equitably extending the benefits of vaccination to all. However, in Norway, little is known about the vaccination of migrant populations.<br><br><b>Objective: </b>The aim of this qualitative research study was to explore the process of vaccinating migrant populations in Norway and elucidate any challenges as perceived by healthcare providers. This involved exploring the challenges faced by healthcare providers in delivering vaccinations to migrants as well as potential barriers faced by migrants in accessing vaccinations in Norway, from the perspectives of healthcare providers.<br><br><b>Methods: </b>In June 2019, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with seven healthcare providers who are involved in vaccinating migrants in South-Eastern and Western Norway. This included healthcare providers working in general practice, public health and infectious disease clinics, migrant health clinics, and local public health institutes.<br><br><b>Results: </b>An inductive, exploratory analysis identified key themes that were reviewed and analysed in light of existing literature. According to the informants, the Childhood Immunisation Programme is effective in including migrant children within the national vaccination schedule. However, gaps in vaccination appear to exist with regards to adult migrants as well as working migrants. There is currently no consistent or structured approach to vaccinating adult migrants in Norway, including no guidelines from governing bodies on how to organise vaccination to adult migrants in municipalities. Furthermore, reasons why adult vaccination is not prioritised were provided, such as tuberculosis screening and treatment taking precedence and the common assumption among healthcare providers that vaccinations are dealt with in childhood.<br><br><b>Conclusion: </b>The development of equitable immunisation programmes requires an understanding of the multifactorial barriers to immunisation, such as those posed by policies, structures and governance bodies, or lack thereof. It also entails understanding the administration of such policies and the perspectives of those who are responsible for the delivery of vaccination, namely healthcare providers. This qualitative research study demonstrated that challenges exist in the vaccination of migrants in Norway and that they are coherent with those experienced throughout the EU, principally the presence of gaps in vaccinating adult migrants, working migrants and internal EU migrants. This research provides direction for future investigations and highlights the need for the inclusion of migrant status in the Norwegian Immunisation Registry.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Rotavirus vaccination was included into the Norwegian childhood immunisation programme in 2014. Before implementation, rotavirus vaccination was found to be cost-effective from a societal perspective, but not from a healthcare perspective. Since introduction, new data on the incidence and economic effects of rotavirus disease have become available. We assessed early epidemiological effects of the rotavirus vaccination programme and re-evaluated its cost-effectiveness in Norway for the years 2015-2019.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a dynamic transmission model, we compared the epidemiological effects of the ongoing two-dose vaccination programme with Rotarix®, and a hypothetical 3-dose programme with RotaTeq® with no vaccination. A baseline cost of € 54 per fully vaccinated child was used. Cost-effectiveness was computed from a healthcare and societal perspective, using a decision analytical model. Data on healthcare use and costs, productivity losses and health utilities were based on published and own estimates. Uncertainty was accounted for in one-way, multi-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.<h4>Results</h4>During 2015-2019, 114,658 home care cases, 34,571 primary care cases, 7,381 severe cases, and 2 deaths associated with rotavirus disease were avoided due to vaccination. Under baseline assumptions vaccination was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective with a cost per QALY of € 47,447 for Rotarix® and € 52,709 for RotaTeq®. The break-even price was € 70 for Rotarix® and € 67 for RotaTeq®. Vaccination was cost-saving from the societal perspective, and also from a healthcare perspective for vaccine prices below € 25 and € 22 per vaccinated child for Rotarix® and RotaTeq®, respectively.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Ongoing childhood rotavirus vaccination in Norway has reduced the rotavirus disease burden substantially, and is cost-effective compared with no vaccination.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Thai massage is a highly gendered and culturally specific occupation. Many female Thai masseuses migrate to Norway as marriage migrants and as such are entitled to the same public healthcare as Norwegian citizens. Additionally, anyone who is not fluent in Norwegian is entitled to have an interpreter provided by the public healthcare system. Norway and most other countries aspire to universal health coverage, but certain immigrant populations continue to experience difficulties accessing appropriate healthcare. This study examined healthcare access among Thai migrant masseuses in Oslo. METHODS:Guided by access to healthcare theory, we conducted a qualitative exploratory study in 2018 with Thai women working as masseuses in Oslo, Norway. Through semi-structured in-depth interviews with 14 Thai women, we explored access to healthcare, health system navigation and care experiences. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis and grouped the information into themes relevant to healthcare access. RESULTS:Participants did not perceive that their occupation limited their access to healthcare. Most of the barriers participants experienced when accessing care were related to persistent language challenges. Women who presented at healthcare facilities with their Norwegian spouse were rarely offered interpreters, despite their husband's limited capacity to translate effectively. Cultural values inhibit women from demanding the interpretation services to which they are entitled. In seeking healthcare, women sought information about health services from their Thai network and relied on family members, friends and contacts to act as informal interpreters. Some addressed their healthcare needs through self-treatment using imported medication or sought healthcare abroad. CONCLUSIONS:Despite having the same entitlements to public healthcare as Norwegian citizens, Thai migrants experience difficulties accessing healthcare due to pervasive language barriers. A significant gap exists between the official policy that professional interpreters should be provided and the reality experienced by study participants. To improve communication and equitable access to healthcare for Thai immigrant women in Norway, health personnel should offer professional interpreters and not rely on Norwegian spouses to translate. Use of community health workers and outreach through Thai networks, may also improve Thai immigrants' knowledge and ability to navigate the Norwegian healthcare system.