Improving health care by embracing Systems Theory

Health Management: Evaluating the Relationship between Organizational Factors, Psychosocial Risks at Work, Performance Management, and Hospital Outcomes

Introduction-Health system (HS) health organizations are complex and are in constant dynamic interaction with multiple elements, including political, environmental, societal, legal, and organizational factors, along with human components, such as human resources, patients, and other stakeholders. Objective-This research aimed to study three HS organizations, identifying and characterizing the elements of health organizations and the factors related to professionals, determining their influence on economic and financial performance results, as well as results related to the professionals and to the patients comprising the institutions. Method-A quantitative study was conducted in which data were collected through questionnaires from various sources to better understand and characterize the factors related to organizations, professionals, and patients (470 health professionals and 768 patients). To test the integrated evaluation model for health organizations, path analysis was used. Results-The results reveal that the organizational culture (OC) presents a positive relationship between the professional's quality of life (QL) and the performance management (PM) of the professionals, along with a negative relationship with the psychosocial work risks (PWR). There is also a relationship between the OC and patient satisfaction (PS), professional job satisfaction (PJS), and economic and financial results (EFR). In the relationship between the processes and the results, there are significant relationships between PM and PJS and PWR and PJS. In terms of the results, there is a significant relationship between the EFR and the PS. Conclusions-This study contributes to a deeper knowledge of the factors that influence the quality of health organizations and their results and produces recommendations for health organizations to address the current challenges.

An Infrastructure to Provide Safer, Higher-Quality, and More Equitable Telehealth

The rapid expansion and prompt widescale adoption of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in telehealth practice variations across health care settings and has implications for patient safety, health equity, and quality of care. Telehealth is part of the public health infrastructure, and health care stakeholders have an opportunity to strategically plan for telehealth expansion and sustainability in organizations as the pandemic wanes. A framework to guide organizational telehealth integration is needed that can support safe, accessible, and high-quality telehealth to patients regardless of social and/or economic status. The purpose of this article is to propose an innovative telehealth model, supported by systems theory, to address the complexity of telehealth implementation in health care organizations. A Donabedian approach is used to address quality. The telehealth model is an organizational infrastructure that outlines how policy and authority requirements, organization factors, provider competencies, and patient determinants of health influence safer, more equitable, higher-quality telehealth. The framework can guide leaders in building, redesigning, and measuring the impact of telehealth programs as health care shifts into a revolutionary technology era to meet the needs of diverse organizations and populations.

Impact of COVID-19 on Management, Quality and Satisfaction of Health Organizations: A Case Study in a Portuguese Hospital

The hospital health care professionals are the front-line fighting COVID-19 considering they are responsible for all the care provided to patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 at the hospital management level and, also, to understand how psychosocial environment, and satisfaction of Health Professionals were affected. A case study was performed in a Portuguese Hospital. Data were collected at one hospital under study at two different occasions: the first before the pandemic (November 2019) and the second almost two years after the pandemic started (November 2021). Regarding data collection, 37.0% of participants responded in the occasion 1 (n = 296) and 63.0% responded in the occasion 2 (n = 503). The instrument for the Assessment of Global Management of Health Organizations (AGMHO) consists of 39 items organized into six dimensions (Gaspar et al. in J Occup Environ Med 63: 581-587, 2021). Comparing timings pre and during pandemic COVID-19, it was found that the participants in the pre-COVID-19 era showed stronger organizational culture, higher quality of life, better psychosocial environment regarding content/leadership and higher job satisfaction when compared to the participants during pandemic COVID-19. On the other hand, participants in the second occasion were found to have higher psychosocial risks related to mental health when compared to participants in the pre-COVID-19 phase. We conclude that the professionals' perception of the different dimensions of the health organization worsened after 2 years of the pandemic. With special focus on psychosocial risks at work and relationship with leadership.

Why is Quality Improvement so Challenging? A Viable Systems Model Perspective to Understand the Frustrations of Healthcare Quality Improvement Managers

The challenges facing Quality Improvement Managers (QIMs) are often understood and addressed in isolation from wider healthcare organisation within which quality improvement initiatives are embedded. We draw on Stafford Beer's Viable System Model (VSM) to shed light on how the viability of quality improvement depends on the effective functioning of five critical quality improvement systems and the extent to which these systems are integrated within the healthcare organisation. These systems are System 1 (Operations), System 2 (Coordination), System 3 (Operational Control), System 4 (Development) and System 5 (Policy). Our analysis draws on interviews with 56 QIMs working in 15 of New Zealand's 20 District Health Boards. We use VSM to identify the sources of problems in QI implementation. These include changes in direction for QI initiatives; myopic behaviour resulting from fragmented systems of care; difficulties in managing and monitoring QI activities given variable staff engagement and inadequate resourcing; pressure for quick results rather developing QI capabilities; and a lack of strategic embeddedness. A viable QI system requires QI approaches that are (1) implemented at an organisation-wide level; (2) well-resourced and carefully monitored; (3) underpinned by a long-term vision; and (4) supported by QIMs with the necessary power and influence to integrate QI subsystem within the wider healthcare organisation.

Integrating epidemiological and economic models to identify the cost of foodborne diseases

Despite food technology advancements, food safety policies and alert systems, foodborne diseases are still a relevant concern for consumers and public health authorities, with great impacts on the economy and the society. Evaluating the cost of foodborne diseases may support the design and the implementation of policy interventions. This paper proposes a simple method for cost identification of foodborne diseases, accessible to researchers and practitioners who are not specialist in economics. The method is based on the assumption that epidemiological and economic models can be integrated to understand how the burden of disease determines costs in a wider socio-economic perspective. Systems thinking and interdisciplinary approach are the pivotal conceptual tools of the method. Systems thinking allows for the understanding of the complex relationships working among the elementary units of a system (e.g. wildlife, bred animals, consumers, environment, agro-food industry) in the occurrence of a health problem such foodborne diseases. Complex systemic relationships usually cross the traditional boundaries of scientific knowledge (human medicine, veterinary science, economics) and sectoral institutional responsibilities (e.g. ministry of health, ministry of agriculture). For these reasons more scientific disciplines, institutional competences and social bodies need to work together to face complex health problems, in an interdisciplinary framework. The first step of the proposed method is the identification of the potential cost of the disease. To this aim, the authors first focus on the links between epidemiological and economic models, based on the fact that foodborne diseases, likewise other diseases, hit people's and animals' aptitude to produce utility and goods for the society (e.g. wellbeing, revenue, safe food). These utility losses are real economic costs. Then they show how simple economic models, such as the food supply chain, can help understand the way costs spread across the economic sectors and the society. It should be underlined that the authors adopt already existing and well rooted scientific tools, focusing in particular that their integration in an interdisciplinary framework can effectively contribute to increase the understanding of complex health problems in a viable way.