RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Workforce is a fundamental health systems building block, with unprecedented measures taken to meet extra demand and facilitate surge capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, following a prolonged period of austerity. This case study examines trends in Ireland's publicly funded health service workforce, from the global financial crisis, through the Recovery period and into the COVID-19 pandemic, to understand resource allocation across community and acute settings. Specifically, this paper aims to uncover whether skill-mix and staff capacity are aligned with policy intent and the broader reform agenda to achieve universal access to integrated healthcare, in part, by shifting free care into primary and community settings. METHODS: Secondary analysis of anonymised aggregated national human resources data was conducted over a period of almost 14 years, from December 31st 2008 to August 31st 2021. Comparative analysis was conducted, by professional cadre, across three keys periods: 'Recession period' December 31st 2008-December 31st 2014; 'Recovery period' December 31st 2014-December 31st 2019; and the 'COVID-19 period' December 31st 2019-August 31st 2021. RESULTS: During the Recession period there was an overall decrease of 8.1% (n = 9333) between December 31st 2008 and December 31st 2014, while the Recovery period saw the overall staff levels rebound and increase by 15.2% (n = 16,789) between December 31st 2014 and December 31st 2019. These figures continued to grow, at an accelerated rate during the most recent COVID-19 period, increasing by a further 8.9% (n = 10,716) in under 2 years. However, a notable shift occurred in 2013, when the number of staff in acute services surpassed those employed in community services (n = 50,038 and 49,857, respectively). This gap accelerated during the Recovery and COVID-19 phase. By August 2021, there were 13,645 more whole-time equivalents in acute settings compared to community, a complete reverse of the 2008 situation. This was consistent across all cadres. Workforce absence trends indicate short-term spikes resulting from shocks while COVID-19 redeployment disproportionately impacted negatively on primary care and community services. CONCLUSIONS: This paper clearly demonstrates the prioritisation of staff recruitment within acute services-increasing needed capacity, without the same commitment to support government policy to shift care into primary and community settings. Concerted action including the permanent redistribution of personnel is required to ensure progressive and sustainable responses are learned from recent shocks.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , Programas de Gobierno , Humanos , Irlanda , Pandemias , Recursos HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Great Recession, following the 2008 financial crisis, led many governments to adopt programmes of austerity. This had a lasting impact on health system functionality, resources, staff (numbers, motivation and morale) and patient outcomes. This study aimed to understand how health system resilience was impacted and how this affects readiness for subsequent shocks. METHODS: A realist review identified legacies associated with austerity (proximal outcomes) and how these impact the distal outcome of health system resilience. EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EconLit and Web of Science were searched (2007-May 2021), resulting in 1081 articles. Further theory-driven searches resulted in an additional 60 studies. Descriptive, inductive, deductive and retroductive realist analysis (utilising excel and Nvivo) aided the development of context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs), alongside stakeholder engagement to confirm or refute emerging results. Causal pathways, and the interplay between context and mechanisms that led to proximal and distal outcomes, were revealed. The refined CMOCs and policy recommendations focused primarily on workforce resilience. RESULTS: Five CMOCs demonstrated how austerity-driven policy decisions can impact health systems when driven by the priorities of external agents. This created a real or perceived shift away from the values and interests of health professionals, a distrust in decision-making processes and resistance to change. Their values were at odds with the realities of implementing such policy decisions within sustained restrictive working conditions (rationing of staff, consumables, treatment options). A diminished view of the profession and an inability to provide high-quality, equitable, and needs-led care, alongside stagnant or degraded working conditions, led to moral distress. This can forge legacies that may adversely impact resilience when faced with future shocks. CONCLUSION: This review reveals the importance of transparent, open communication, in addition to co-produced policies in order to avoid scenarios that can be detrimental to workforce and health system resilience.
Asunto(s)
Salud Global , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Programas de Gobierno , Gobierno , Recursos HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Medical residents work long, continuous hours. Working in conditions of extreme fatigue has adverse effects on the quality and safety of care, and on residents' quality of life. Many countries have attempted to regulate residents' work hours. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review residents' work hours regulations in different countries with an emphasis on night shifts. METHODS: Standardized qualitative data on residents' working hours were collected with the assistance of experts from 14 high-income countries through a questionnaire. An international comparative analysis was performed. RESULTS: All countries reviewed limit the weekly working hours; North-American countries limit to 60-80 h, European countries limit to 48 h. In most countries, residents work 24 or 26 consecutive hours, but the number of long overnight shifts varies, ranging from two to ten. Many European countries face difficulties in complying with the weekly hour limit and allow opt-out contracts to exceed it. CONCLUSIONS: In the countries analyzed, residents still work long hours. Attempts to limit the shift length or the weekly working hours resulted in modest improvements in residents' quality of life with mixed effects on quality of care and residents' education.