How hospital leaders implemented a safe surgery protocol in Australian hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the strategies used by hospital leaders to improve compliance with the 'ensuring correct patient, correct site and correct procedure protocol'. While following such a protocol saves lives according to an international study of the World Health Organization safe surgery checklist, promoting compliance in hospitals has proved to be a regulatory challenge. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a qualitative research design and 'responsive regulation' theory, this study explored implementation strategies used by hospital leaders in 20 Australian public hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 72 informants to analyse how front-line leaders improved compliance with the safe surgery protocol in their hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation analysis of the safe surgery protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The use of implementation strategies located on a 'responsive regulation' pyramid. RESULTS: Informants identified many strategies used to improve protocol compliance typically beginning with persuasion. Supportive strategies were located on a regulatory pyramid beginning with softer interventions: persuade, enlist leaders, train, remind, relax protocol requirements, redesign hospital systems and reward compliance. In response to low and slow compliance, many hospital leaders switched to a pyramid of escalating sanctions: direct, delegate, monitor, publicly report, reprimand and penalize. CONCLUSIONS: A multiplex problem requires graduated and multiplex regulation. Hospital leaders proved to be responsive regulators in applying both multiple supports and sanctions that improved compliance over 3 years. These experiences with protocol implementation illustrate the multifaceted challenge of health sector regulation and offer lessons for embedding future patient safety solutions.

A framework for comparative analysis of health systems: experiences from the Asia Pacific Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

Drawing on published work from the Asia Pacific Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, this paper presents a framework for undertaking comparative studies on the health systems of countries. Organized under seven types of research approaches, such as national case-studies using a common format, this framework is illustrated using studies of low- and middle-income countries published by the Asia Pacific Observatory. Such studies are important contributions, since much of the health systems research literature comes from high-income countries. No one research approach, however, can adequately analyse a health system, let alone produce a nuanced comparison of different countries. Multiple comparative studies offer a better understanding, as a health system is a complex entity to describe and analyse. Appreciation of context and culture is crucial: what works in one country may not do so in another. Further, a single research method, such as performance indicators, or a study of a particular health system function or component, produces only a partial picture. Applying a comparative framework of several study approaches helps to inform and explain progress against health system targets, to identify differences among countries, and to assess policies and programmes. Multi-method comparative research produces policy-relevant learning that can assist countries to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3: ensure healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages by 2030.