Crisis leadership behaviors in healthcare: survey validation and influence on staff outcomes in primary care clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an unprecedented transition from in-person to virtual delivery of primary health care services. Leaders were at the helm of the rapid changes required to make this happen, yet outcomes of leaders' behaviours were largely unexplored. This study (1) develops and validates the Crisis Leadership and Staff Outcomes (CLSO) Survey and (2) investigates the leadership behaviours exhibited during the transition to virtual care and their influence on select staff outcomes in primary care. METHODS: We tested the CLSO Survey amongst leaders and staff from four Community Health Centres in Ontario, Canada. The CLSO Survey measures a range of crisis leadership behaviors, such as showing empathy and promoting learning and psychological safety, as well as perceived staff outcomes in four areas: innovation, teamwork, feedback, and commitment to change. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to investigate factor structure and construct validity. We report on the scale's internal consistency through Cronbach's alpha, and associations between leadership scales and staff outcomes through odds ratios. RESULTS: There were 78 staff and 21 middle and senior leaders who completed the survey. A 4-factor model emerged, comprised of the leadership behaviors of (1) "task-oriented leadership" and (2) "person-oriented leadership", and select staff outcomes of (3) "commitment to sustaining change" and (4) "performance self-evaluation". Scales exhibited strong construct and internal validity. Task- and person-oriented leadership behaviours positively related to the two staff outcomes. CONCLUSION: The CLSO Survey is a reliable measure of leadership behaviours and select staff outcomes. Our results suggest that crisis leadership is multifaceted and both person-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviours are critical during a crisis to improve perceived staff performance and commitment to change.

Multiple case study of processes used by hospitals to select performance indicators: do they align with best practices?

Several health policy institutes recommend reducing the number of indicators monitored by hospitals to better focus on indicators most relevant to local contexts. To determine which indicators are the most appropriate to eliminate, one must understand how indicator selection processes are undertaken. This study classifies hospital indicator selection processes and analyzes how they align with practices outlined in the 5-P Indicator Selection Process Framework. This qualitative, multiple case study examined indicator selection processes used by four large acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected through 13 semistructured interviews and document analysis. A thematic analysis compared processes to the 5-P Indicator Selection Process Framework. Two types of hospital indicator selection processes were identified. Hospitals deployed most elements found within the 5-P Indicator Selection Process Framework including setting clear aims, having governance structures, considering indicators required by health agencies, and categorizing indicators into strategic themes. Framework elements largely absent included: adopting evidence-based selection criteria; incorporating finance and human resources indicators; considering if indicators measure structures, processes, or outcomes; and engaging a broader set of end users in the selection process. Hospitals have difficulty in balancing how to monitor government-mandated indicators with indicators more relevant to local operations. Hospitals often do not involve frontline managers in indicator selection processes. Not engaging frontline managers in selecting indicators may risk hospitals only choosing government-mandated indicators that are not reflective of frontline operations or valued by those managers accountable for improving unit-level performance.

On the same page? A qualitative study of shared mental models in an interprofessional, inter-organizational team implementing goal-oriented care.

Goal-oriented care is an approach to care delivery that uses patient-identified goals to drive care planning. Implementing goal-oriented care requires team members to cognitively shift the focus from "what is the matter" to "what matters to patients," and align their mental models of what it means to care for patients. Yet, no empirical studies of goal-oriented care apply evidence from the cognitive sciences, such as Shared Mental Model (SMM) theory. We conducted a qualitative case study of an interprofessional team that adopted goal-oriented care in Vermont, US (n = 18). Guided by SMM theory, we distinguished between task-related and team-related mental models. We used framework analysis and qualitative content analysis to determine mental model content and similarity. The most shared content areas were operationalizing goal-oriented care, engaging in formal and informal communication, taking a "whole-person" approach, taking a team approach, and building trusting relationships with patients and with other team members. Trust was the only construct that spanned both task and team mental model categories, highlighting the importance of both intra-team trust and provider-patient trust to the implementation of goal-oriented care. Team members developed SMMs through training, regular meetings, and interactions during care delivery. This study provides insight into the cognitive mechanisms that underlie team-based goal-oriented care delivery, which can be used to inform implementation, training content, and future research.

Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are increasingly implementing policy-driven programs to incentivize performance using contracts, scorecards, rankings, rewards, and penalties. Studies of these "Performance Management" (PM) programs have identified unintended negative consequences. However, no single comprehensive typology of the negative and positive unintended consequences of PM in healthcare exists and most studies of unintended consequences were conducted in England or the United States. The aims of this study were: (1) To develop a comprehensive typology of unintended consequences of PM in healthcare, and (2) To describe multiple stakeholder perspectives of the unintended consequences of PM in cancer and renal care in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of unintended consequences of PM in healthcare (n = 41 papers) to develop a typology of unintended consequences. We then conducted a secondary analysis of data from a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 147 participants involved with or impacted by a PM system used to oversee 40 care delivery networks in Ontario, Canada. Participants included administrators and clinical leads from the networks and the government agency managing the PM system. We undertook a hybrid inductive and deductive coding approach using the typology we developed from the rapid review. RESULTS: We present a comprehensive typology of 48 negative and positive unintended consequences of PM in healthcare, including five novel unintended consequences not previously identified or well-described in the literature. The typology is organized into two broad categories: unintended consequences on (1) organizations and providers and on (2) patients and patient care. The most common unintended consequences of PM identified in the literature were measure fixation, tunnel vision, and misrepresentation or gaming, while those most prominent in the qualitative data were administrative burden, insensitivity, reduced morale, and systemic dysfunction. We also found that unintended consequences of PM are often mutually reinforcing. CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive typology provides a common language for discourse on unintended consequences and supports systematic, comparable analyses of unintended consequences across PM regimes and healthcare systems. Healthcare policymakers and managers can use the results of this study to inform the (re-)design and implementation of evidence-informed PM programs.

Centralization and innovation: Competing priorities for health systems?

Over the last 15 years, there has been a trend in Canada to centralise the provision of health services that were previously administratively and fiscally decentralised. Canadian policy rhetoric on centralisation often identifies improved innovation as an anticipated outcome. This paper challenges the assumed relationship between centralisation and innovation. We incorporate evidence from the management literature into the debate on the structure of health systems to explore the effects that centralisation is likely to have on innovation in health systems. The findings of this paper will be of interest to international policymakers, who are currently grappling with the prospect of maintaining a decentralised approach or adopting a more centralised health system structure in the future.

What do end-users want to know about managing the performance of healthcare delivery systems? Co-designing a context-specific and practice-relevant research agenda.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in joint research priority-setting, few studies engage end-user groups in setting research priorities at the intersection of the healthcare and management disciplines. With health systems increasingly establishing performance management programmes to account for and incentivize performance, it is important to conduct research that is actionable by the end-users involved with or impacted by these programmes. The aim of this study was to co-design a research agenda on healthcare performance management with and for end-users in a specific jurisdictional and policy context. METHODS: We undertook a rapid review of the literature on healthcare performance management (n = 115) and conducted end-user interviews (n = 156) that included a quantitative ranking exercise to prioritize five directions for future research. The quantitative rankings were analysed using four methods: mean, median, frequency ranked first or second, and frequency ranked fifth. The interview transcripts were coded inductively and analysed thematically to identify common patterns across participant responses. RESULTS: Seventy-three individual and group interviews were conducted with 156 end-users representing diverse end-user groups, including administrators, clinicians and patients, among others. End-user groups prioritized different research directions based on their experiences and information needs. Despite this variation, the research direction on motivating performance improvement had the highest overall mean ranking and was most often ranked first or second and least often ranked fifth. The research direction was modified based on end-user feedback to include an explicit behaviour change lens and stronger consideration for the influence of context. CONCLUSIONS: Joint research priority-setting resulted in a practice-driven research agenda capable of generating results to inform policy and management practice in healthcare as well as contribute to the literature. The results suggest that end-users are keen to open the "black box" of performance management to explore more nuanced questions beyond "does performance management work?" End-users want to know how, when and why performance management contributes to behaviour change (or fails to) among front-line care providers.

Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings: Mixed-methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention aimed at building capacity to deliver palliative care in primary care settings. DESIGN: The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year pilot project involving interprofessional palliative care education and an integrated care model to promote early identification and support of patients with palliative care needs. A concurrent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using descriptive data, provider surveys before and after implementation, and interviews with providers and managers. SETTING: Four primary care practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All providers in each practice were invited to participate. Providers used the "surprise question" as a prompt to determine patient eligibility for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider attitudes toward and confidence in providing palliative care, use of palliative care tools, delivery of palliative care, and perceived barriers to delivering palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients were identified for early initiation of palliative care, most of whom had multiple comorbid conditions. Results demonstrated improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care (30% mean increase, P < .05) and self-reported use of palliative care tools and services (25% mean increase, P < .05). There was substantial variation across practices regarding the percentage of patients identified using the surprise question (0.2% to 1.5%), the number of advance care planning conversations initiated (50% to 90%), and mean time to conversation (13 to 76 days). This variation is attributable, in part, to contextual differences across practices. CONCLUSION: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care to patients can be integrated into the routine practice of primary care practitioners with appropriate training and support. Additional research is needed to understand the practice factors that contribute to the success of palliative care interventions in primary care and to examine patient outcomes.

From Measurement to Improvement in Ontario's Cancer System: Analyzing the Performance of 28 Provincial Indicators over 15 Years.

Over the past 15 years, Cancer Care Ontario has used a robust performance management approach to drive improvements in care. Each year, priority indicators and targets are selected or retained, and performance is reviewed quarterly with each of Ontario's Regional Cancer Programs. Improvement support and encouragement are provided, such as data analysis, program ranking, communities of practice, consultations, action plan requests and certificates. This article analyzes data on 28 indicators prioritized over these years and demonstrates that 25 have shown sustained improvement over time. The performance management approach, lessons learned and gaps in knowledge are described to inform future research and practice.

Integrating early palliative care into routine practice for patients with cancer: A mixed methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing evidence from controlled trials on benefits of early palliative care, there is a need for studies examining implementation in real-world settings. The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year real-world project that promoted early identification and support of patients with cancer who may benefit from palliative care. This study assesses feasibility, stakeholder experiences, and early impact of the INTEGRATE Project METHODS: The INTEGRATE Project was implemented in four cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, and consisted of interdisciplinary provider education and an integrated care model. Providers used the Surprise Question to identify patients for inclusion. A mixed methods evaluation of INTEGRATE was conducted using descriptive data, interviews with providers and managers, and provider surveys. RESULTS: A total of 760 patients with cancer (lung, glioblastoma, head and neck, gastrointestinal) were included. Results suggest improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care and to initiate the Advanced Care Planning (ACP) conversation. The majority of patients (85%) had an ACP or goals of care (GOC) conversation initiated within a mean time to conversation of 5-46 days (SD 20-93) across centers. A primary care report was transmitted to family doctors 48-100% of the time within a mean time to transmission of 7-54 days (SD 9-27) across centers. Enablers and barriers influencing success of the model were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care for patients with cancer can be integrated into the routine practice of oncology providers, with appropriate education, integration into existing clinical workflows, and administrative support.

Out of sync: a Shared Mental Models perspective on policy implementation in healthcare.

The impact of policy ambiguity on implementation is a perennial concern in policy circles. The degree of ambiguity of policy goals and the means to achieve them influences the likelihood that a policy will be uniformly understood and implemented across implementation sites. We argue that the application of institutional and organisational theories to policy implementation must be supplemented by a socio-cognitive lens in which stakeholders' interpretations of policy are investigated and compared. We borrow the concept of 'Shared Mental Models' from the literature on industrial psychology to examine the microprocesses of policy implementation. Drawing from interviews with 45 key informants involved in the implementation of a hospital funding reform, known as Quality-Based Procedures in Ontario, Canada, we identify divergent mental models and explain how these divergences may have affected implementation and change management. We close with considerations for future research and practice.

Standardising costs or standardising care? Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and impact of a hospital funding reform in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, the Government of Ontario, Canada, has phased in hospital funding reforms hoping to encourage standardised, evidence-based clinical care processes to both improve patient outcomes and reduce system costs. One aspect of the reform - quality-based procedures (QBPs) - replaced some of each hospital's global budget with a pre-set price per episode of care for patients with specific diagnoses or procedures. The QBP initiative included publication and dissemination of a handbook for each of these diagnoses or procedures, developed by an expert technical group. Each handbook was intended to guide hospitals in reducing inappropriate variation in patient care and cost by specifying an evidence-based episode of care pathway. We explored whether, how and why hospitals implemented these episode of care pathways in response to this initiative. METHODS: We interviewed key informants at three levels in the healthcare system, namely individuals who conceived and designed the QBP policy, individuals and organisations supporting QBP adoption, and leaders in five case-study hospitals responsible for QBP implementation. Analysis involved an inductive approach, incorporating framework analysis to generate descriptive and explanatory themes from data. RESULTS: The 46 key informants described variable implementation of best practice episode of care pathways across QBPs and across hospitals. Handbooks outlining evidence-based clinical pathways did not address specific barriers to change for different QBPs nor differences in hospitals' capacity to manage change. Hospitals sometimes found it easier to focus on containing and standardising costs of care than on implementing standardised care processes that adhered to best clinical practices. CONCLUSION: Implementation of QBPs in Ontario's hospitals depended on the interplay between three factors, namely complexity of changes required, internal capacity for organisational change, and availability and appropriateness of targeted external facilitators and supports to manage change. Variation in these factors across QBPs and hospitals suggests the need for more tailored and flexible implementation supports designed to fit all elements of the policy, rather than one-size-fits-all handbooks alone. Without such supports, hospitals may enact quick fixes aimed mainly at preserving budgets, rather than pursue evidence- and value-based changes in care management. Overestimating hospitals' change management capacity increases the risk of implementation failure.

Leading Integrated Health and Social Care Systems: Perspectives from Research and Practice.

As the research evidence on integrated care has evolved over the past two decades, so too has the critical role leaders have for the implementation, effectiveness and sustainability of integrated care. This paper explores what it means to be an effective leader of integrated care initiatives by drawing from the experiences of a leadership team in implementing an award-winning integrated care program in Toronto, Canada. Lessons learned are described and assessed against existing theory and research to identify which skills and behaviours facilitate effective leadership of integrated care initiatives.

Intellectual capital in the healthcare sector: a systematic review and critique of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Variations in the performance of healthcare organizations may be partly explained by differing "stocks" of intellectual capital (IC), and differing approaches and capacities for leveraging IC. This study synthesizes what is currently known about the conceptualization, management and measurement of IC in healthcare through a review of the literature. METHODS: Peer-reviewed papers on IC in healthcare published between 1990 and 2014 were identified through searches of five databases using the following key terms: intellectual capital/assets, knowledge capital/assets/resources, and intangible assets/resources. Articles deemed relevant for inclusion underwent systematic data extraction to identify overarching themes and were assessed for their methodological quality. RESULTS: Thirty-seven papers were included in the review. The primary research method used was cross-sectional questionnaires focused on hospital managers' perceptions of IC, followed by semi-structured interviews and analysis of administrative data. Empirical studies suggest that IC is linked to subjective process and performance indicators in healthcare organizations. Although the literature on IC in healthcare is growing, it is not advanced. In this paper, we identify and examine the conceptual, theoretical and methodological limitations of the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The concept and framework of IC offer a means to study the value of intangible resources in healthcare organizations, how to manage systematically these resources together, and their mutually enhancing interactions on performance. We offer several recommendations for future research.

Integrating cancer care beyond the hospital and across the cancer pathway: a patient-centred approach.

Cancer patients constitute one of the most complex, diverse and growing patient populations in Canada. Like other high-needs patient groups, cancer patients desire a more integrated approach to care delivery that spans organizational and professional boundaries. This article provides an overview of Cancer Care Ontario's experience in fostering a more integrated cancer system, and describes the organization's emerging focus on patient-centred models of integrated care through the whole cancer pathway, from prevention to end-of-life care and survivorship.

A cognitive perspective on health systems integration: results of a Canadian Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing challenges to healthcare integration point toward the need to move beyond structural and process issues. While we know what needs to be done to achieve integrated care, there is little that informs us as to how. We need to understand how diverse organizations and professionals develop shared knowledge and beliefs - that is, we need to generate knowledge about normative integration. We present a cognitive perspective on integration, based on shared mental model theory, that may enhance our understanding and ability to measure and influence normative integration. The aim of this paper is to validate and improve the Mental Models of Integrated Care (MMIC) Framework, which outlines important knowledge and beliefs whose convergence or divergence across stakeholder groups may influence inter-professional and inter-organizational relations. METHODS: We used a two-stage web-based modified Delphi process to test the MMIC Framework against expert opinion using a random sample of participants from Canada's National Symposium on Integrated Care. Respondents were asked to rate the framework's clarity, comprehensiveness, usefulness, and importance using seven-point ordinal scales. Spaces for open comments were provided. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the structured responses, while open comments were coded and categorized using thematic analysis. The Kruskall-Wallis test was used to examine cross-group agreement by level of integration experience, current workplace, and current role. RESULTS: In the first round, 90 individuals responded (52% response rate), representing a wide range of professional roles and organization types from across the continuum of care. In the second round, 68 individuals responded (75.6% response rate). The quantitative and qualitative feedback from experts was used to revise the framework. The re-named "Integration Mindsets Framework" consists of a Strategy Mental Model and a Relationships Mental Model, comprising a total of nineteen content areas. CONCLUSIONS: The Integration Mindsets Framework draws the attention of researchers and practitioners to how various stakeholders think about and conceptualize integration. A cognitive approach to understanding and measuring normative integration complements dominant cultural approaches and allows for more fine-grained analyses. The framework can be used by managers and leaders to facilitate the interpretation, planning, implementation, management and evaluation of integration initiatives.

Leading the implementation of health links in Ontario.

Ontario's Health Links initiative aims to coordinate and improve care for complex patients. In this paper, we draw from interviews with leaders and providers from Health Links and Local Health Integration Networks to discuss key leadership and governance issues influencing the implementation and success of the Health Links. We close with a short discussion of how leaders manage ambiguity by creating a context that supports change and the delivery of integrated care.

Shared mental models of integrated care: aligning multiple stakeholder perspectives.

PURPOSE: Health service organizations and professionals are under increasing pressure to work together to deliver integrated patient care. A common understanding of integration strategies may facilitate the delivery of integrated care across inter-organizational and inter-professional boundaries. This paper aims to build a framework for exploring and potentially aligning multiple stakeholder perspectives of systems integration. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors draw from the literature on shared mental models, strategic management and change, framing, stakeholder management, and systems theory to develop a new construct, Mental Models of Integrated Care (MMIC), which consists of three types of mental models, i.e. integration-task, system-role, and integration-belief. FINDINGS: The MMIC construct encompasses many of the known barriers and enablers to integrating care while also providing a comprehensive, theory-based framework of psychological factors that may influence inter-organizational and inter-professional relations. While the existing literature on integration focuses on optimizing structures and processes, the MMIC construct emphasizes the convergence and divergence of stakeholders' knowledge and beliefs, and how these underlying cognitions influence interactions (or lack thereof) across the continuum of care. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: MMIC may help to: explain what differentiates effective from ineffective integration initiatives; determine system readiness to integrate; diagnose integration problems; and develop interventions for enhancing integrative processes and ultimately the delivery of integrated care. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Global interest and ongoing challenges in integrating care underline the need for research on the mental models that characterize the behaviors of actors within health systems; the proposed framework offers a starting point for applying a cognitive perspective to health systems integration.

Selecting Performance Indicators and Targets in Health Care: An International Scoping Review and Standardized Process Framework.

Objective: Health care organizations monitor hundreds of performance indicators. It is unclear what processes and criteria organizations use to identify the indicators they use, who is involved in these processes, how performance targets are set, and what the impacts of these processes are. The purpose of this study is to synthesize international approaches to indicator selection and develop a standardized process framework. Methods: Using the PubMed and Web of Science search engines, a scoping review of peer reviewed and grey literature following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted to identify documents describing indicator selection processes used by health systems. English-language papers from 11 countries published from 2010 to 2020 were included. Papers were thematically analyzed to develop a standardized process framework. Results: The review included 33 peer-reviewed papers and 11 grey-literature documents. While there are common practices used in health care to select indicators, no single standardized process framework for indicator selection exists. Arbitrary or incomplete indicator selection processes risk over-measurement, lack of alignment with strategic and operational goals, lack of support by end-users, and paralyzed decision-making ability. By consolidating international practices, we developed the 5-P indicator selection process framework to mitigate process risks and support high-quality indicator selection processes. Conclusion: The 5-P indicator selection process framework consists of five domains and 17 elements, and offers health care agencies a practical structure they can use to design indicator selection processes. The framework also provides researchers with a basis by which the implementation of these processes may be evaluated.

Implementing Coordinated Care Networks: The Interplay of Individual and Distributed Leadership Practices.

How does leadership emerge and function when multiple health care organizations come together to form a network? In this qualitative comparative case study, we draw on distributed leadership theory to examine the leadership practices that manifested during the implementation of three coordinated care networks. Thirty leaders and care providers participated in semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively analyzed using thematic analysis. Although established in response to the same policy initiative, each case differed in its leadership approach and implementation strategy. We found that manifestation of distributed leadership was contingent on the presence of an individual leader who acted as a unifying force across their respective network. Our findings suggest that policies to encourage the development of interorganizational networks should include sufficient resources to support an individual leader who enables distributed leadership.