Understanding peer support: a qualitative interview study of doctors one year after seeking support.

BACKGROUND: Doctors' health is of importance for the quality and development of health care and to doctors themselves. As doctors are hesitant to seek medical treatment, peer support services, with an alleged lower threshold for seeking help, is provided in many countries. Peer support services may be the first place to which doctors turn when they search for support and advice relating to their own health and private or professional well-being. This paper explores how doctors perceive the peer support service and how it can meet their needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve doctors were interviewed a year after attending a peer support service which is accessible to all doctors in Norway. The qualitative, semi-structured interviews took place by on-line video meetings or over the phone (due to the COVID-19 pandemic) during 2020 and were audiotaped. Analysis was data-driven, and systematic text condensation was used as strategy for the qualitative analysis. The empirical material was further interpreted with the use of theories of organizational culture by Edgar Schein. RESULTS: The doctors sought peer support due to a range of different needs including both occupational and personal challenges. They attended peer support to engage in dialogue with a fellow doctor outside of the workplace, some were in search of a combination of dialogue and mental health care. The doctors wanted peer support to have a different quality from that of a regular doctor/patient appointment. The doctors expressed they needed and got psychological safety and an open conversation in a flexible and informal setting. Some of these qualities are related to the formal structure of the service, whereas others are based on the way the service is practised. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support seems to provide psychological safety through its flexible, informal, and confidential characteristics. The service thus offers doctors in need of support a valued and suitable space that is clearly distinct from a doctor/patient relationship. The doctors' needs are met to a high extent by the peer-support service, through such conditions that the doctors experience as beneficial.

Employee silence in health care: Charting new avenues for leadership and management.

ISSUE: Health care management is faced with a basic conundrum about organizational behavior; why do professionals who are highly dedicated to their work choose to remain silent on critical issues that they recognize as being professionally and organizationally significant? Speaking-up interventions in health care achieve disappointing outcomes because of a professional and organizational culture that is not supportive. CRITICAL THEORETICAL ANALYSIS: Our understanding of the different types of employee silence is in its infancy, and more ethnographic and qualitative work is needed to reveal the complex nature of silence in health care. We use the sensemaking theory to elucidate how the difficulties to overcoming silence in health care are interwoven in health care culture. INSIGHT/ADVANCE: The relationship between withholding information and patient safety is complex, highlighting the need for differentiated conceptualizations of silence in health care. We present three Critical Challenge points to advance our understanding of silence and its roots by (1) challenging the predominance of psychological safety, (2) explaining how we operationalize sensemaking, and (3) transforming the role of clinical leaders as sensemakers who can recognize and reshape employee silence. These challenges also point to how employee silence can also result in a form of dysfunctional professionalism that supports maladaptive health care structures in practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Delineating the contextual factors that prompt employee silence and encourage speaking up among health care workers is crucial to addressing this issue in health care organizations. For clinical leaders, the challenge is to valorize behaviors that enhance adaptive and deep psychological safety among teams and within professions while modeling the sharing of information that leads to improvements in patient safety and quality of care.

Organizational logics in time of crises: How physicians narrate the healthcare response to the Covid-19 pandemic in Swedish hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare organizations and puts focus on risk management in many ways. Both medical staff and leaders at various levels have been forced to find solutions to problems they had not previously encountered. This study aimed to explore how physicians in Sweden narrated the changes in organizational logic in response to the Covid-19 pandemic using neo-institutional theory and discursive psychology. In specific, we aimed to explore how physicians articulated their understanding of if and, in that case, how the organizational logic has changed during this crisis response. METHODS: The empirical material stems from interviews with 29 physicians in Sweden in the summer and autumn of 2020. They were asked to reflect on the organizational response to the pandemic focusing on leadership, support, working conditions, and patient care. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that the organizational logic in Swedish healthcare changed and that the physicians came in troubled positions as leaders. With management, workload, and risk repertoires, the physicians expressed that the organizational logic, to a large extent, was changed based on local contextual circumstances in the 21 self-governing regions. The organizational logic was being altered based upon how the two powerbases (physicians and managers) were interacting over time. CONCLUSIONS: Given that healthcare probably will deal with future unforeseen crises, it seems essential that healthcare leaders discuss what can be a sustainable organizational logic. There should be more explicit regulatory elements about who is responsible for what in similar situations. The normative elements have probably been stretched during the ongoing crisis, given that physicians have gained practical experience and that there is now also, at least some evidence-based knowledge about this particular pandemic. But the question is what knowledge they need in their education when it comes to dealing with new unknown risks.

Duty to treat and perceived risk of contagion during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian physicians' perspectives and experiences-a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic actualised the dilemma of how to balance physicians´ obligation to treat patients and their own perceived risk of being infected. To discuss this in a constructive way we need empirical studies of physicians´ views of this obligation. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to a representative sample of Norwegian physicians in December 2020. We measured their perceived obligation to expose themselves to infection, when necessary, in order to provide care, concerns about being infected themselves, for spreading the virus to patients or to their families. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The response rate was 1639/2316 (70.9%), 54% women. Of doctors < 70, 60,2% (95% CI 57.7-62.7) acknowledged to some or a large degree an obligation to expose themselves to risk of infection, and 42.0% (39.5-44.5) held this view despite a scarcity of personal protective equipment (PPE). Concern about being infected oneself to some or to a large extent was reported by 42.8% (40.3-45.3), 47.8% (45.3-50.3) reported concern about spreading the virus to patients, and 63.9% (61.5-66.3) indicated worry about spreading it to their families. Being older increased the odds of feeling obligated (ExpB = 1.02 p < 0.001), while experiencing scarcity of PPE decreased the odds (ExpB = 0.74, p = 0.01). The odds of concern about spreading virus to one´s family decreased with higher age (Exp B = 0.97, p < 0.001), increased with being female (Exp B = 1.44, p = 0.004), and perceived lack of PPE (Exp B = 2.25, p < 0.001). Although more physicians working in COVID-exposed specialties experienced scarcity of PPE and reported perceived increased risks for health personnel, the odds of concern about being infected themselves or spreading the virus to their families were not higher than for other doctors. CONCLUSION: These empirical findings lead to the question if fewer physicians in the future will consider the duty to treat their top priority. This underscores the need to revisit and revitalise existing ethical codes to handle the dilemma between physicians´ duty to treat versus the duty to protect physicians and their families. This is important for the ability to provide good care for the patient and the provider in a future pandemic situation.

Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences.

BACKGROUND: In the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable. METHODS: In December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.

Experiences from implementing value-based healthcare at a Swedish University Hospital - an longitudinal interview study.

BACKGROUND: Implementing the value-based healthcare concept (VBHC) is a growing management trend in Swedish healthcare organizations. The aim of this study is to explore how representatives of four pilot project teams experienced implementing VBHC in a large Swedish University Hospital over a period of 2 years. The project teams started their work in October 2013. METHODS: An explorative and qualitative design was used, with interviews as the data collection method. All the participants in the four pilot project teams were individually interviewed three times, with interviews starting in March 2014 and ending in November 2015. All the interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Value for the patients was experienced as the fundamental drive for implementing VBHC. However, multiple understandings of what value for patients' means existed in parallel. The teams received guidance from consultants during the first 3 months. There were pros and cons to the consultant's guidance. This period included intensive work identifying outcome measurements based on patients' and professionals' perspectives, with less interest devoted to measuring costs. The implementation process, which both gave and took energy, developed over time and included interventions. In due course it provided insights to the teams about the complexity of healthcare. The necessity of coordination, cooperation and working together inter-departmentally was critical. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare organizations implementing VBHC will benefit from emphasizing value for patients, in line with the intrinsic drive in healthcare, as well as managing the process of implementation on the basis of understanding the complexities of healthcare. Paying attention to the patients' voice is a most important concern and is also a key towards increased engagement from physicians and care providers for improvement work.

Untangling the perception of value in value-based healthcare - an interview study.

PURPOSE: Value-based health care (VBHC) argues that health-care needs to re-focus to maximise value creation, defining value as the quota when dividing the outcomes important for the patient, by the cost for health care to deliver such outcomes. This study aims to explore the perception of value among different stakeholders involved in the process of implementing VBHC at a Swedish hospital to support leaders to be more efficient and effective when developing health care. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Participants comprised 19 clinicians and non-clinicians involved in the implementation of VBHC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and content analysis was performed. FINDINGS: The clinicians described value as a dynamic concept, dependent on the patient and the clinical setting, stating that improving outcomes was more important than containing costs. The value for non-clinicians appeared more driven by the interplay between the outcome and the cost. Non-clinicians related VBHC to a strategic framework for governance or for monitoring different continuous improvement processes, while clinicians appreciated VBHC, as they perceived its introduction as an opportunity to focus more on outcomes for patients and less on cost containment. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: There is variation in how clinicians and non-clinicians perceive the key concept of value when implementing VBHC. Clinicians focus on increasing treatment efficacy and improving medical outcomes but have a limited focus on cost and what patients consider most valuable. If the concept of value is defined primarily by clinicians' own assumptions, there is a clear risk that the foundational premise of VBHC, to understand what outcomes patients value in their specific situation in relation to the cost to produce such outcome, will fail. Health-care leaders need to ensure that patients and the non-clinicians' perception of value, is integrated with the clinical perception, if VBHC is to deliver on its promise.

Moral distress among physicians in Norway: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and compare physicians' reported moral distress in 2004 and 2021 and identify factors that could be related to these responses. DESIGN: Longitudinal survey. SETTING: Data were gathered from the Norwegian Physician Panel Study, a representative sample of Norwegian physicians, conducted in 2004 and 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 1499 physicians in 2004 and 2316 physicians in 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The same survey instrument was used to measure change in moral distress from 2004 to 2021. Logistic regression analyses examined the role of gender, age and place of work. RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (1004/1499) in 2004 and 71% (1639/2316) in 2021. That patient care is deprived due to time constraints is the most severe dimension of moral distress among physicians, and it has increased as 68.3% reported this 'somewhat' or 'very morally distressing' in 2004 compared with 75.1% in 2021. Moral distress also increased concerning that patients who 'cry the loudest' get better and faster treatment than others. Moral distress was reduced on statements about long waiting times, treatment not provided due to economic limitations, deprioritisation of older patients and acting against one's conscience. Women reported higher moral distress than men at both time points, and there were significant gender differences for six statements in 2021 and one in 2004. Age and workplace influenced reported moral distress, though not consistently for all statements. CONCLUSION: In 2004 and 2021 physicians' moral distress related to scarcity of time or unfair distribution of resources was high. Moral distress associated with resource scarcity and acting against one's conscience decreased, which might indicate improvements in the healthcare system. On the other hand, it might suggest that physicians have reduced their ideals or expectations or are morally fatigued.

Why risk professional fulfilment: a grounded theory of physician engagement in healthcare development.

UNLABELLED: The need for trans-professional collaboration when developing healthcare has been stressed by practitioners and researchers. Because physicians have considerable impact on this process, their willingness to become involved is central to this issue. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to gain a deeper understanding of how physicians view their engagement in healthcare development. METHOD: Using a grounded theory approach, the study developed a conceptual model based on empirical data from qualitative interviews with physicians working at a hospital (n = 25). RESULTS: A continual striving for experiences of usefulness and progress, conceptualized as 'striving for professional fulfilment' (the core category), emerged as a central motivational drive for physician engagement in healthcare development. Such experiences were gained when achieving meaningful results, having impact, learning to see the greater context and fulfilling the perceived doctor role. Reinforcing organizational preconditions that facilitated physician engagement in healthcare development were workplace continuity, effective strategies and procedures, role clarity regarding participation in development and opportunities to gain knowledge about organization and development. Two opposite role-taking tendencies emerged: upholding a traditional doctor role with high autonomy in relation to organization and management, clinical work serving as the main source of fulfilment, or approaching a more complete 'employeeship' role in which organizational engagement also provides a sense of fulfilment. CONCLUSION: Experiencing professional fulfilment from participation in healthcare development is crucial for sustainable physician engagement in such activities.

Engaging physicians in organisational improvement work.

PURPOSE: To improve health-care delivery from within, managers need to engage physicians in organisational development work. Physicians and managers have different mindsets/professional identities which hinder effective communication. The aim of this paper is to explore how managers can transform this situation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors' interview study reveals physicians' own perspective on engagement for organisational improvement. They discuss identities from three theoretical perspectives and explore the mindsets of physicians and managers. They also explore the need to modify professional identities and how this can be achieved. FINDINGS: If managers want physicians to engage in improvements, they must learn to understand and appreciate physician identity. This might challenge managers' identity. The paper shows how managers - primarily in a Swedish context - could act to facilitate physician engagement. This in turn might challenge physician identity. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Studies from the western world show a coherent picture of professional identities, despite structural differences in national health-care systems. The paper argues, therefore, that the results can be relevant to many other health-care systems and settings. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper provides an alternative to the prevailing managerial control perspective. The alternative is simple, yet complex and challenging, and as the authors understand it, necessary for health care to evolve, from within.

Challenges in preserving the "good doctor" norm: physicians' discourses on changes to the medical logic during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic was a tremendous challenge to the practice of modern medicine. In this study, we use neo-institutional theory to gain an in-depth understanding of how physicians in Sweden narrate how they position themselves as physicians when practicing modern medicine during the first wave of the pandemic. At focus is medical logic, which integrates rules and routines based on medical evidence, practical experience, and patient perspectives in clinical decision-making. Methods: To understand how physicians construct their versions of the pandemic and how it impacted the medical logic in which they practice, we analyzed the interviews from 28 physicians in Sweden by discursive psychology. Results: The interpretative repertoires showed how COVID-19 created an experience of knowledge vacuum in medical logic and how physicians dealt with clinical patient dilemmas. They had to find unorthodox ways to rebuild a sense of medical evidence while still being responsible for clinical decision-making for patients with critical care needs. Discussion: In the knowledge vacuum occurring during the first wave of COVID-19, physicians could not use their common medical knowledge nor rely on published evidence or their clinical judgment. They were thus challenged in their norm of being the "good doctor". One practical implication of this research is that it provides a rich empirical account where physicians are allowed to mirror, make sense, and normalize their own individual and sometimes painful struggle to uphold the professional role and related medical responsibility in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be important to follow how the tremendous challenge of COVID-19 to medical logic plays out over time in the community of physicians. There are many dimensions to study, with sick leave, burnout, and attrition being some interesting areas.

Healthcare in distress: A survey of mental health problems and the role of gender among nurses and physicians in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: The present article aimed to investigate 1) if mental health problems (depression and burnout including the dimensions; emotional exhaustion, mental distance and cognitive and emotional impairment) differed between nurses and physicians in Sweden, 2) if any differences were explained by differences in sex compositions, and 3) if any sex differences were larger within either of the two professions. METHOD: Data were derived from a representative sample of nurses (n = 2903) and physicians (n = 2712) in 2022. Two scales were used to assess burnout (KEDS and BAT) and one to assess depression (SCL-6). The BAT scale has four sub-dimensions. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to analyse each scale and dimension separately. RESULTS: Results showed that 16-28 % of nurses and physicians reported moderate to severe symptoms of burnout. The prevalence differed between occupations across the scales and dimensions used. Nurses reported higher scores on KEDS while physicians reported higher scores on BAT including the four dimensions. Also, 7 % of nurses' and 6 % of physicians' scores were above the cut-off for major depression. The inclusion of sex in the models changed the odds ratios of differences between doctors and nurses in all mental health dimensions except mental distance and cognitive impairment. LIMITATIONS: This study was based on cross-sectional survey data which has some limitations. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the prevalence of mental health problems is prominent among nurses and physicians in Sweden. Sex plays an important role in the difference in the prevalence of mental health problems between the two professions.

How hospital top managers reason about the central leadership task of balancing quality of patient care, economy and professionals' engagement: an interview study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to deepen the understanding of how top managers reason about handling the relationships between quality of patient care, economy and professionals' engagement. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Qualitative design. Individual in-depth interviews with all members of the executive management team at an emergency hospital in Norway were analysed using reflexive thematic method. FINDINGS: The top managers had the intention to balance between quality of patient care, economy and professionals' engagement. This became increasingly difficult in times of high internal or external pressures. Then top management acted as if economy was the most important focus. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: For health-care top managers to lead the pursuit towards increased sustainability in health care, there is a need to balance between quality of patient care, economy and professionals' engagement. This study shows that this balancing act is not an anomaly top-managers can eradicate. Instead, they need to recognize, accept and deliberately act with that in mind, which can create virtuous development spirals where managers and health-professional communicate and collaborate, benefitting quality of patient care, economy and professionals' engagement. However, this study builds on a limited number of participants. More research is needed. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Sustainable health care needs to balance quality of patient care and economy while at the same time ensure professionals' engagement. Even though this is a central leadership task for managers at all levels, there is limited knowledge about how top managers reason about this.

Insights Gained From a Re-analysis of Five Improvement Cases in Healthcare Integrating System Dynamics Into Action Research.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare is complex with multi-professional staff and a variety of patient care pathways. Time pressure and minimal margins for errors, as well as tension between hierarchical power and the power of the professions, make it challenging to implement new policies or procedures. This paper explores five improvement cases in healthcare integrating system dynamics (SD) into action research (AR), aiming to identify methodological aspects of how this integration supported multi-professional groups to discover workable solutions to work-related challenges. METHODS: This re-analysis was conducted by a multi-disciplinary research group using an iterative abductive approach applying qualitative analysis to structure and understand the empirical material. Frameworks for consultancy assignments/client projects were used to identify case project stages (workflow steps) and socio-analytical questions were used to bridge between the AR and SD perspectives. RESULTS: All studied cases began with an extensive AR-inspired inventory of problems/objectives and ended with an SD-facilitated experimental phase where mutually agreed solutions were tested in silico. Time was primarily divided between facilitated group discussions during meetings and modelling work between meetings. Work principles ensured that the voice of each participant was heard, inspired engagement, interaction, and exploratory mutual learning activities. There was an overall pattern of two major divergent and convergent phases, as each group moved towards a mutually developed point of reference for their problem/objective and solution, a case-specific multi-professional knowledge repository. CONCLUSION: By integrating SD into AR, more favourable outcomes for the client organization may be achieved than when applying either approach in isolation. We found that SD provided a platform that facilitated experiential learning in the AR process. The identified results were calibrated to local needs and circumstances, and compared to traditional top-down implementation for change processes, improved the likelihood of sustained actualisation.

The Swedish HealthPhys Study: Study Description and Prevalence of Clinical Burnout and Major Depression among Physicians.

Objectives: The study purpose was to describe the Swedish HealthPhys cohort. Using data from the HealthPhys study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of clinical burnout and major depression in a representative sample of Swedish physicians across gender, age, worksite, hierarchical position, and speciality in spring of 2021, during the third wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Method: The HealthPhys questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of practising physicians (n = 6699) in Sweden in February to May of 2021 with a 41.3% response rate. The questionnaire included validated instruments measuring psychosocial work environment and health including measurements for major depression and clinical burnout. Results: Data from the HealthPhys study showed that among practising physicians in Sweden the prevalence of major depression was 4.8% and clinical burnout was 4.7%. However, the variations across sub-groups of physicians regarding major depression ranged from 0% to 10.1%. For clinical burnout estimates ranged from 1.3% to 14.5%. Emergency physicians had the highest levels of clinical burnout while they had 0% prevalence of major depression. Prevalence of exhaustion was high across all groups of physicians with physicians working in emergency departments, at the highest (28.6%) and anaesthesiologist at the lowest (5.6%). Junior physicians had high levels across all measurements. Conclusions: In conclusion, the first data collection from the HealthPhys study showed that the prevalence of major depression and clinical burnout varies across genders, age, hierarchical position, worksite, and specialty. Moreover, many practising physicians in Sweden experienced exhaustion and were at high risk of burnout.

Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Lack of physician involvement in quality improvement threatens the success and sustainability of quality improvement measures. It is therefore important to assess physicians´ interests and opportunities to be involved in quality improvement and their experiences of such participation, both in hospital and general practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted on a representative sample of physicians in different job positions in Norway in 2019. RESULTS: The response rate was 72.6% (1513 of 2085). A large proportion (85.7%) of the physicians wanted to participate in quality improvement, and 68.6% had actively done so in the last year. Physicians' interest in quality improvement and their active participation was significantly related to the designated time for quality improvement in their work-hour schedule (p < 0.001). Only 16.7% reported time designated for quality improvement in their own work hours. When time was designated, 86.6% of the physicians reported participation in quality improvement, compared to 63.7% when time was not specially designated. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that physicians want to participate in quality improvement, but only a few have designated time to allow continuous involvement. Physicians with designated time participate significantly more. Future quality programs should involve physicians more actively by explicitly designating their time to participate in quality improvement work. We need further studies to explore why managers do not facilitate physicians´ participation in quality improvement.