Barriers and enablers for externally and internally driven implementation processes in healthcare: a qualitative cross-case study.

BACKGROUND: Quality in healthcare is a subject in need of continuous attention. Quality improvement (QI) programmes with the purpose of increasing service quality are therefore of priority for healthcare leaders and governments. This study explores the implementation process of two different QI programmes, one externally driven implementation and one internally driven, in Norwegian nursing homes and home care services. The aim for the study was to identify enablers and barriers for externally and internally driven implementation processes in nursing homes and homecare services, and furthermore to explore if identified enablers and barriers are different or similar across the different implementation processes. METHODS: This study is based on an exploratory qualitative methodology. The empirical data was collected through the 'Improving Quality and Safety in Primary Care - Implementing a Leadership Intervention in Nursing Homes and Homecare' (SAFE-LEAD) project. The SAFE-LEAD project is a multiple case study of two different QI programmes in primary care in Norway. A large externally driven implementation process was supplemented with a tracer project involving an internally driven implementation process to identify differences and similarities. The empirical data was inductively analysed in accordance with grounded theory. RESULTS: Enablers for both external and internal implementation processes were found to be technology and tools, dedication, and ownership. Other more implementation process specific enablers entailed continuous learning, simulation training, knowledge sharing, perceived relevance, dedication, ownership, technology and tools, a systematic approach and coordination. Only workload was identified as coincident barriers across both externally and internally implementation processes. Implementation process specific barriers included turnover, coping with given responsibilities, staff variety, challenges in coordination, technology and tools, standardizations not aligned with work, extensive documentation, lack of knowledge sharing. CONCLUSION: This study provides understanding that some enablers and barriers are present in both externally and internally driven implementation processes, while other are more implementation process specific. Dedication, engagement, technology and tools are coinciding enablers which can be drawn upon in different implementation processes, while workload acted as the main barrier in both externally and internally driven implementation processes. This means that some enablers and barriers can be expected in implementation of QI programmes in nursing homes and home care services, while others require contextual understanding of their setting and work.

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

BACKGROUND: Resilience in healthcare is the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes to maintain high-quality care across system levels. While healthcare system stakeholders such as patients, informal carers, healthcare professionals and service managers have all come to be acknowledged as important co-creators of resilient healthcare, our knowledge and understanding of who, how, and in which contexts different stakeholders come to facilitate and support resilience is still lacking. This study addresses gaps in the research by conducting a stakeholder analysis to identify and categorise the stakeholders that are key to facilitating and sustaining resilience in healthcare, and to investigate stakeholder relationships relevant for the enactment of resilient healthcare systems. METHODS: The stakeholder analysis was conducted using a sample of 19 empirical research projects. A narrative summary was written for 14 of the projects, based on publicly available material. In addition, 16 individual interviews were undertaken with researchers from the same sample of 19 projects. The 16 interview transcripts and 14 narratives made up the data material of the study. Application of stakeholder analysis methods was done in three steps: a) identification of stakeholders; b) differentiation and categorisation of stakeholders using an interest/influence grid; and c) investigation and mapping of stakeholder relationships using an actor-linkage matrix. RESULTS: Identified stakeholders were Patients, Family Carers, Healthcare Professionals, Ward/Unit Managers, Service or Case Managers, Regulatory Investigators, Policy Makers, and Other Service Providers. All identified stakeholders were categorised as either 'Subjects', 'Players', or 'Context Setters' according to their level of interest in and influence on resilient healthcare. Stakeholder relationships were mapped according to the degree and type of contact between the various groups of stakeholders involved in facilitating resilient healthcare, ranging from 'Not linked' to 'Fully linked'. CONCLUSION: Family carers and healthcare professionals were found to be the most active groups of stakeholders in the enactment of healthcare system resilience. Patients, managers, and policy makers also contribute to resilience to various degrees. Relationships between stakeholder groups are largely characterised by communication and coordination, in addition to formal collaborations where diverse actors work together to achieve common goals.

Learning does not just happen: establishing learning principles for tools to translate resilience into practice, based on a participatory approach.

BACKGROUND: Theories of learning are of clear importance to resilience in healthcare since the ability to successfully adapt and improve patient care is closely linked to the ability to understand what happens and why. Learning from both positive and negative events is crucial. While several tools and approaches for learning from adverse events have been developed, tools for learning from successful events are scarce. Theoretical anchoring, understanding of learning mechanisms, and establishing foundational principles for learning in resilience are pivotal strategies when designing interventions to develop or strengthen resilient performance. The resilient healthcare literature has called for resilience interventions, and new tools to translate resilience into practice have emerged but without necessarily stipulating foundational learning principles. Unless learning principles are anchored in the literature and based on research evidence, successful innovation in the field is unlikely to occur. The aim of this paper is to explore: What are key learning principles for developing learning tools to help translate resilience into practice? METHODS: This paper reports on a two-phased mixed methods study which took place over a 3-year period. A range of data collection and development activities were conducted including a participatory approach which involved iterative workshops with multiple stakeholders in the Norwegian healthcare system. RESULTS: In total, eight learning principles were generated which can be used to help develop learning tools to translate resilience into practice. The principles are grounded in stakeholder needs and experiences and in the literature. The principles are divided into three groups: collaborative, practical, and content elements. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of eight learning principles that aim to help develop tools to translate resilience into practice. In turn, this may support the adoption of collaborative learning approaches and the establishment of reflexive spaces which acknowledge system complexity across contexts. They demonstrate easy usability and relevance to practice.

The role of collaborative learning in resilience in healthcare-a thematic qualitative meta-synthesis of resilience narratives.

BACKGROUND: To provide high quality services in increasingly complex, constantly changing circumstances, healthcare organizations worldwide need a high level of resilience, to adapt and respond to challenges and changes at all system levels. For healthcare organizations to strengthen their resilience, a significant level of continuous learning is required. Given the interdependence required amongst healthcare professionals and stakeholders when providing healthcare, this learning needs to be collaborative, as a prerequisite to operationalizing resilience in healthcare. As particular elements of collaborative working, and learning are likely to promote resilience, there is a need to explore the underlying collaborative learning mechanisms and how and why collaborations occur during adaptations and responses. The aim of this study is to describe collaborative learning processes in relation to resilient healthcare based on an investigation of narratives developed from studies representing diverse healthcare contexts and levels. METHODS: The method used to develop understanding of collaborative learning across diverse healthcare contexts and levels was to first conduct a narrative inquiry of a comprehensive dataset of published health services research studies. This resulted in 14 narratives (70 pages), synthesised from a total of 40 published articles and 6 PhD synopses. The narratives where then analysed using a thematic meta-synthesis approach. RESULTS: The results show that, across levels and contexts, healthcare professionals collaborate to respond and adapt to change, maintain processes and functions, and improve quality and safety. This collaboration comprises activities and interactions such as exchanging information, coordinating, negotiating, and aligning needs and developing buffers. The learning activities embedded in these collaborations are both activities of daily work, such as discussions, prioritizing and delegation of tasks, and intentional educational activities such as seminars or simulation activities. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, we propose that the enactment of resilience in healthcare is dependent on these collaborations and learning processes, across different levels and contexts. A systems perspective of resilience demands collaboration and learning within and across all system levels. Creating space for reflection and awareness through activities of everyday work, could support individual, team and organizational learning.

Evaluating a system-wide, safety investigation in healthcare course in Norway: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING: National, system-wide safety investigation represents a new approach to safety improvement in healthcare. In 2019, a new master's level course in Safety Investigation in Healthcare was established to support the training and development of a new team of investigators from an independent investigatory body. The course was established at one Norwegian university and a total of 19 students were enrolled and completed the course. The aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the course, and the objectives were to explore the students' needs and expectations prior to the course conduct, and their experiences and suggestions for improvements after course completion. DESIGN: The study design was a qualitative explorative study with individual and focus group interviews. Data collection included five individual interviews prior to course participation and two focus group interviews, after course participation, with a total sample size of 13 participants. Data were analysed according to thematic analysis. RESULTS: The results showed a need for a common conceptual foundation for the multidisciplinary team of safety investigators who were all employed in the same investigatory body. Course participation contributed to create reflexive spaces for the participants and generated new knowledge about the need for a broad range of investigatory tools and approaches. This contrasted with the initial aspiration among the participants to have a recipe for how to conduct safety investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Course participation contributed to a common language among a highly multidisciplinary group of safety investigators and supported building a culture of collaborative learning. The need for additional activities to further develop a safety investigation curriculum in healthcare was identified. It is recommended that such a curriculum be co-created with independent investigators, safety scientists, patients and users, and healthcare professionals to ensure a strong methods repertoire and a sound theoretical backdrop for investigatory practice.

Exploring the nature of adaptive capacity for resilience in healthcare across different healthcare contexts; a metasynthesis of narratives.

Adaptive capacity has been described as instrumental for the development of resilience in healthcare. Yet, our theoretical understanding of adaptive capacity remains relatively underdeveloped. This research therefore aims at developing a new understanding of the nature of adaptive capacity by exploring the following research questions: 1. What constitutes adaptive capacity across different healthcare contexts? and 2. What type of enabling factors support adaptive capacity across different healthcare contexts? The study used a novel combination of qualitative methods featuring a metasynthesis of narratives based on empirical research to contribute understanding of adaptive capacity across different healthcare contexts. The findings show that adaptive capacity was found to include four forms: reframing, aligning, coping, and innovating. A framework illustrating the relatedness between the identified forms, in terms of resources, change and enablers, is provided. Based on these findings, a new definition of adaptive capacity for resilience in healthcare is proposed.

Capacities for resilience in healthcare; a qualitative study across different healthcare contexts.

BACKGROUND: Despite an emerging consensus on the importance of resilience as a framework for understanding the healthcare system, the operationalization of resilience in healthcare has become an area of continuous discussion, and especially so when seeking operationalization across different healthcare contexts and healthcare levels. Different indicators for resilience in healthcare have been proposed by different researchers, where some indicators are coincident, some complementary, and some diverging. The overall aim of this article is to contribute to this discussion by synthesizing knowledge and experiences from studies in different healthcare contexts and levels to provide holistic understanding of capacities for resilience in healthcare. METHODS: This study is a part of the first exploratory phase of the Resilience in Healthcare programme. The exploratory phase has focused on screening, synthesising, and validating results from existing empirical projects covering a variety of healthcare settings. We selected the sample from several former and ongoing research projects across different contexts and levels, involving researchers from SHARE, the Centre for Resilience in Healthcare in Norway. From the included projects, 16 researchers participated in semi-structured interviews. The dataset was analysed in accordance with grounded theory. RESULTS: Ten different capacities for resilience in healthcare emerged from the dataset, presented here according to those with the most identified instances to those with the least: Structure, Learning, Alignment, Coordination, Leadership, Risk awareness, Involvement, Competence, Facilitators and Communication. All resilience capacities are interdependent, so effort should not be directed at achieving success according to improving just a single capacity but rather at being equally aware of the importance and interrelatedness of all the resilience in healthcare capacities. CONCLUSIONS: A conceptual framework where the 10 different resilience capacities are presented in terms of contextualisation and collaboration was developed. The framework provides the understanding that all resilience capacities are associated with contextualization, or collaboration, or both, and thereby contributes to theorization and guidance for tailoring, making operationalization efforts for the identified resilience capacities in knowledge translation. This study therefore contributes with key insight for intervention development which is currently lacking in the literature.

Balancing adaptation and innovation for resilience in healthcare - a metasynthesis of narratives.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation and innovation are both described as instrumental for resilience in healthcare. However, the relatedness between these dimensions of resilience in healthcare has not yet been studied. This study seeks to develop a conceptual understanding of adaptation and innovation as a basis for resilience in healthcare. The overall aim of this study is therefore to explore how adaptation and innovation can be described and understood across different healthcare settings. To this end, the overall aim will be investigated by identifying what constitutes adaptation and innovation in healthcare, the mechanisms involved, and what type of responses adaptation and innovation are associated with. METHODS: The method used to develop understanding across a variety of healthcare contexts, was to first conduct a narrative inquiry of a comprehensive dataset from various empirical settings (e.g., maternity, transitional care, telecare), that were later analysed in accordance with grounded theory. Narrative inquiry provided a contextually informed synthesis of the phenomenon, while the use of grounded theory methodology allowed for cross-contextual comparison of adaptation and innovation in terms of resilience in healthcare. RESULTS: The results identified an imbalance between adaptation and innovation. If short-term adaptations are used too extensively, they may mask system deficiencies and furthermore leave the organization vulnerable, by relying too much on the efforts of a few individuals. Hence, short-term adaptations may end up a barrier for resilience in healthcare. Long-term adaptations and innovation of products, processes and practices proved to be of a lower priority, but had the potential of addressing the flaws of the system by proactively re-organizing and re-designing routines and practices. CONCLUSIONS: This study develops a new conceptual account of adaptation and innovation as a basis for resilience in healthcare. Findings emerging from this study indicate that a balance between adaptation and innovation should be sought when seeking resilience in healthcare. Adaptations can furthermore be divided into short-term and long-term adaptations, creating the need to balance between these different types of adaptations. Short-term adaptations that adopt the pattern of firefighting can risk generating complex and unintended outcomes, but where no significant changes are made to organization of the system. Long-term adaptations, on the other hand, introduce re-organization of the system based on feedback, and therefore can provide a proactive response to system deficiencies. We propose a pattern of adaptation in resilience in healthcare: from short-term adjustments, to long-term reorganizations, to innovations.

Talking about quality: how 'quality' is conceptualized in nursing homes and homecare.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of high-quality service in nursing homes and homecare requires collaboration and shared understanding among managers, employees, users and policy makers from across the healthcare system. However, conceptualizing healthcare professionals' perception of quality beyond hospital settings (e.g., its perspectives, defining attributes, quality dimensions, contextual factors, dilemmas) has rarely been done. This study therefore explores the meaning of "quality" among healthcare managers and staff in nursing homes and homecare. METHODS: The study applies a cross-sectional qualitative design with focus groups and individual interviews, to capture both depth and breadth of conceptualization of quality from healthcare professionals in nursing homes and homecare. We draw our data from 65 managers and staff in nursing homes and homecare services in Norway and the Netherlands. The participants worked as managers (n = 40), registered nurses (RNs) or assistant nurses (n = 25). RESULTS: The analysis identified the two categories and four sub-categories: "Professional issues: more than firefighting" (subcategories "professional pride" and "competence") and "patient-centered approach: more than covering basic needs" (subcategories "dignity" and "continuity"). Quality in nursing homes and homecare is conceptualized as an ongoing process based on having the "right competence," good cooperation across professional groups, and patient-centered care, in line with professional pride and dignity for the patients. CONCLUSION: Based on the understanding of quality among the healthcare professionals in our study, quality should encompass the softer dimensions of professional pride and competence, as well as a patient-centered approach to care. These dimensions should be factors in improvement activities and in daily practice.

Next of Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part I - The Next of Kin's Perspective).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore experiences from the next of kin's perspective of a new involvement method in the regulatory investigation process of adverse events causing patient death. METHODS: The study design was a qualitative process evaluation of the new involvement method in two Norwegian counties. Next of kin who had lost a close family member in an adverse event were invited to a 2-hour face-to-face meeting with regulatory inspectors to shed light on the event from the next of kin's perspective. Data collection involved 18 interviews with 29 next of kin who had participated in the meeting and observations (20 hours) of meetings from 2017 to 2018. Data were analyzed using a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Next of kin wanted to be involved and had in-depth knowledge about the adverse event and the healthcare system. Their involvement extended beyond sharing information, and some experienced it as having a therapeutic effect and contributing to transparency and trust building. The inspectors' professional, social, and human skills determined the experiences of the involvement and were key for next of kin's positive experiences. The meeting was emotionally challenging, and some next of kin found it difficult to understand the regulators' independent role and suggested improving information given to the next of kin before the meeting. CONCLUSIONS: Although the meeting was emotionally challenging, the next of kin had a positive experience of being involved in the investigation and believed that their information contributed to improving the investigation process.

Next-of-Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part II: The Inspectors' Perspective).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore regulatory inspectors' experiences with a new method for next-of-kin involvement in investigation of adverse events causing patient death. A resilient healthcare perspective is used as the theoretical foundation. METHODS: The study design was a qualitative process evaluation of the new involvement method in 2 Norwegian counties. Next of kin, who had lost a close family member in an adverse event, were invited to a 2-hour face-to-face meeting with the inspectors. Data collection involved 3 focus group interviews with regulatory inspectors and observation (20 hours) of the meetings (2017-2018). Data were analyzed by a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Next-of-kin involvement informed the investigations by additional and new information about the adverse events and by different versions of the investigators' earlier obtained information, such as time sequences, what happened and how, and who were involved. Inspectors considered next of kin as a key source of information that contributed to improve the quality of the investigation. The downside was that the involvement method increased work load and could challenge the principle of equal treatment in regulatory practice. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of next of kin in regulatory investigation of adverse events causing patient death contributes to a better understanding of work as done in clinical practice and contributes to strengthen the learning potential in resilience.