Health system resilience: a critical review and reconceptualisation

Examining liminality in professional practice, relational identities, and career prospects in resource-constrained health systems: Findings from an empirical study of medical and nurse interns in Kenya

We examine new doctors' and nurses' experiences of transitioning from training to practising as health professionals, drawing on the concept of liminality. Liminality is a stage of 'in-betweenness', involving uncertainty and ambiguity as people leave one social context and reintegrate into a new one. Surprisingly little research has explored new health professionals' experiences of liminality during role and career transitions, particularly in precarious and resource-constrained settings. Drawing on 146 qualitative interviews and seven focus groups, involving 121 new graduate medical doctors and nurses transitioning through internship training in Kenya, we describe three aspects of liminality. First, liminal professional practice, where interns realise that best practices learned during medical and nursing schools are often impossible to implement in resource constrained health care settings; instead they learn workarounds and practical norms. Second, liminal relational identities, where interns leave behind being students and adopt the identities and responsibilities of qualified professionals within pre-existing professional hierarchies of status and expertise. We explain how these new doctors and graduate nurses negotiate their liminal status, including in relation to more experienced but less qualified professional colleagues. We also discuss how interns cope with liminality due to disappointing and inadequate supervision and role modelling from senior colleagues but then find peer support and their place within their own professions. Finally, we discuss how new doctors and nurses come to terms with the precarity of working in resource constrained health systems, abandon expectations of secure, permanent employment and careers, and accept the realities of liminal professional careers. We explain how all three forms of liminality influence professionals' developing practices, identities, and careers. We call for further studies with a specific liminality lens to explore this critical period in health workers' careers, to inform policy and practice responding to global transformations in healthcare professions and practice.

Home-based advanced care is a solution to quality health care in rural Taiwan: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The integrated home-based medical care (iHBMC) program has been implemented by the Taiwanese government since 2016. The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) accelerated the shift from hospital-based to community-based healthcare, with a special focus on advanced home care for frail older adults. This study focuses on home-based advanced care, such as hospital at home (HaH), aiming to explore the feasibility and resilience of HaH within a home-based medical care model in a rural community in Taiwan.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records from February 2020 to August 2022. Two clinical professionals reviewed and abstracted data from the electronic medical records of 189 patients receiving home healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. The HaH event was calculated if patients had any acute infection and received treatment at home.

RESULTS

A total of 62 HaH events occurred during 2020-2022 and the average HaH events per person was 1.4. In these events, the top reason for patients receiving HaH was pneumonia, followed by urinary tract infection, soft tissue infection, and sepsis. 77.4% of patients completed the HaH treatment and did not experience any recurrent acute infections in the 30-day follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Different forms of home healthcare enhance the resilience of medical care provision in rural areas. As Taiwan approaches a hyper-aged society by 2025, it is crucial that National Health Insurance policies support various home-based care models that address transportation issues and maintain high care standards in underserved rural areas.

Trust Building in Public Health Approaches: The Importance of a "People-Centered" Concept in Crisis Response

Purpose

To argue for trust-building as a key solution for responding to public health crises in the face of political ambiguity in international health governance.

Patients and Methods

This perspective piece reviews fundamental concepts and discusses future directions using secondary data from open-access sources.

Results

The promise of learning from Covid-19 and previous public health crises, along with the growing recognition of a 'Health For All Policies' approach, clash with siloed preparations, management, and recovery plans for future emergency crises. Trust is proposed as a possible solution to overcome these limitations. It acts as a binding force that unites individuals within the community, fostering a sense of belonging and participation. Trust-building is viewed as a "People-Centered" approach in Crisis Response, aimed at creating active and resilient communities to foster preparation and readiness, respond to emergent risks, facilitate recovery, and mitigate risks. A remaining question is how to measure and identify the dimensions and determinants of trust in specific circumstances. Some ideas are systematized to highlight the pathway to build trust in public health approaches, including transparency, education, robust and equitable health systems, strengthened social capital, stakeholders' engagement, and health workforce training.

Conclusion

Trust in public health approaches can be fostered through consistent delivery of quality care, a clear, shared vision, and values underpinned by ethical standards. It requires a commitment to stakeholder well-being, including staff, and the integration of reliability, integrity, and transparency into policies, strategies, and practices. Exemplary leadership, openness in resource utilization, addressing waste or corruption, and effective communication of these principles are essential.

We Need a Combination of Approaches to Evaluate Health System Resilience Comment on "Re-evaluating Our Knowledge of Health System Resilience During COVID-19: Lessons From the First Two Years of the Pandemic"

Health system resilience has become a desirable health system attribute in the current permacrisis environment. The article by Saulnier and colleagues reviews the literature on health system resilience and refines the concept, pinpointing dimensions of resilience governance that have not reached consensus, or that are missing from the literature. In this commentary we complement the findings by discussing different conceptual frameworks for understanding resilience and introducing resilience testing, a method to assess health system resilience using a hypothetical shock scenario. Resilience testing is a mixed-methods approach that combines a review of existing data with a structured workshop, where health system experts collaboratively assess the resilience of their health system. The new method is proposed as a tool for policy-making, as the results can identify attributes of the current health system that may hinder or boost a resilient response to the next crisis.

Evidence of health system resilience in primary health care for preventing under-five mortality in Rwanda and Bangladesh: Lessons from an implementation study during the Millennium Development Goal period and the early period of COVID-19

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to disruptions of health service delivery in many countries; some were more resilient in either limiting or rapidly responding to the disruption than others. We used mixed methods implementation research to understand factors and strategies associated with resiliency in Rwanda and Bangladesh, focussing on how evidence-based interventions targeting amenable under-five mortality that had been used during the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) period (2000-15) were maintained during the early period of COVID-19.

Methods

We triangulated data from three sources - a desk review of available documents, existing quantitative data on evidence-based intervention coverage, and key informant interviews - to perform a comparative analysis using multiple case studies methodology, comparing contextual factors (barriers or facilitators), implementation strategies (existing from 2000-15, new, or adapted), and implementation outcomes across the two countries. We also analysed which health system resiliency capabilities were present in the two countries.

Results

Both countries experienced many of the same facilitators for resiliency of evidence-based interventions for children under five, as well as new, pandemic-specific barriers during the early COVID-19 period (March to December 2020) that required targeted implementation strategies in response. Common facilitators included leadership and governance and a culture of accountability, while common barriers included movement restrictions, workload, and staff shortages. We saw a continuity of implementation strategies that had been associated with success in care delivery during the MDG period, including data use for monitoring and decision-making, as well as building on community health worker programmes for community-based health care delivery. New or adapted strategies used in responding to new barriers included the expanded use of digital platforms. We found implementation outcomes and strong resilience capabilities, including awareness and adaptiveness, which were related to pre-existing facilitators and implementation strategies (continued and new).

Conclusions

The strategies and contextual factors Rwanda and Bangladesh leveraged to build 'everyday resilience' before COVID-19, i.e. during the MDG period, likely supported the maintained delivery of the evidence-based interventions targeting under-five mortality during the early stages of the pandemic. Expanding our understanding of pre-existing factors and strategies that contributed to resilience before and during the pandemic is important to support other countries' efforts to incorporate 'everyday resilience' into their health systems.

Exploring society-to-cells resilience among community members: A multidisciplinary study in outpatient clinics with diverse participant demographics

AIM

This study explores and understands community members' resilience in outpatient clinics, considering various dimensions and types of resilience.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

This study was conducted in Saudi outpatient clinics from September to December 2023 and included 384 individuals chosen through systematic random sampling. Various tools were used, such as Social Cohesion and Trust Scale, Community Resilience Assessment Tool, Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences, Environmental Resilience Assessment, Economic Resilience Index, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Brief Resilience Scale, Resilience Scale for Adults and Healthcare Resilience Index.

RESULTS

Participants displayed a robust overall resilience level, as indicated by Total Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score of 63.0 ± 9.0. Additionally, they demonstrated commendable levels of resilience in Total Brief Resilience Scale (56.04 ± 8.6), Resilience Scale for Adults (82.5 ± 7.2) and Healthcare Resilience Index (45.8 ± 5.5). These findings offer significant insights into psychological and emotional well-being of the study population, highlighting their adaptive capacities and coping mechanisms across various life domains.

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights into the multidimensional nature of resilience in outpatient settings. The cross-sectional design sets the groundwork for future longitudinal investigations, highlighting the need for a holistic approach to understanding and promoting resilience.

IMPACT

This study holds immediate implications for participants and their communities. It underscores the adaptive capacities and coping mechanisms prevalent in the outpatient population by revealing commendable resilience levels. This insight enhances individuals' psychological and emotional well-being, contributing positively to the overall resilience and communal strength. Additionally, this study sheds light on how resilience among community members in Saudi Arabia relates to international advanced nursing communities, providing insight into their work.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients who have received outpatient services in the past 6 months were purposively chosen to ensure a diverse representation across age, gender and socio-economic backgrounds in this study.

Association between characteristics of employing healthcare facilities and healthcare worker infection rates and psychosocial experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Healthcare facility characteristics, such as ownership, size, and location, have been associated with patient outcomes. However, it is not known whether the outcomes of healthcare workers are associated with the characteristics of their employing healthcare facilities, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This was an analysis of a nationwide registry of healthcare workers (the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) registry). Participants were surveyed on their personal, employment, and medical characteristics, as well as our primary study outcomes of COVID-19 infection, access to personal protective equipment, and burnout. Participants from healthcare sites with at least ten respondents were included, and these sites were linked to American Hospital Association data to extract information about sites, including number of beds, teaching status, urban/rural location, and for-profit status. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate linear regression models for the unadjusted and adjusted associations between healthcare facility characteristics and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 8,941 healthcare workers from 97 clinical sites were included in the study. After adjustment for participant demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities, facility for-profit status was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.02-3.03, p = .042). Micropolitan location was associated with decreased odds of COVID-19 infection after adjustment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24, 0.71, p = .002. For-profit facility status was associated with decreased odds of burnout after adjustment (aOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), p = .044).

CONCLUSIONS

For-profit status of employing healthcare facilities was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis but decreased odds of burnout after adjustment for demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities. Future research to understand the relationship between facility ownership status and healthcare outcomes is needed to promote wellbeing in the healthcare workforce.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The registry was prospectively registered: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (trial registration number) NCT04342806, submitted April 8, 2020.

Understanding the legacies of shocks on health system performance: Exploring Ireland's management of recent crises and its implications for policy

This paper contrasts the Irish experience of the 2008 economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic, and the health system responses to these shocks, from the perspective of health system leaders working across both time periods. Based on semi-structured interviews with seven senior national and international officials, the research presented here forms the qualitative component of RESTORE, a five-year research project examining health system resilience and reform, funded through the Health Research Board's Research Leader Award in Ireland. Findings indicate that the financial crisis deeply impacted the Irish health system in relation to infrastructure and capacity, service delivery and workforce. Due to these legacy issues, Ireland's health system was in a relatively weak position when faced with the Covid-19 pandemic but the system proved adaptive and innovative during this time. Furthermore, the pandemic proved to be a catalyst for positive change, providing opportunities for long-term reform, alongside an immediate response to the crisis. This was facilitated by increased funding, a devolution in decision-making structures and a political commitment to the health system. Exploring lessons from the Irish response to these crises provides a case study for developing appropriate policy responses around financing and resource allocation, fostering support for healthcare among political leaders and policy makers, and preparing for future shocks. Furthermore, examining these experiences facilitates understanding around the impact of each crisis on the health system, exploring options for addressing legacy issues and considering practical steps to improve health system performance.

The effect of COVID-19 on the non-COVID health outcomes of crisis-affected peoples: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic posed considerable risks to populations affected by humanitarian crises in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there is limited understanding of how the pandemic may have affected non-COVID health outcomes among crisis-affected populations. Our aim was to examine the evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 health outcomes for crisis-affected populations in LMICs.

METHODS

A systematic review methodology was applied following PRISMA guidelines. Eligibility criteria were: crisis-affected populations in LMICS; COVID-19; and all health topics, except for sexual and reproductive health which was covered in a linked review. Five bibliographic databases and additional grey literature sources were searched. The search period was from 2019 to 31 July 2022. Eligible papers were extracted and analysed using a narrative synthesis approach based on the study objectives and relevant health access and systems frameworks. A quality appraisal was also conducted.

FINDINGS

4320 articles were screened, and 15 eligible studies were identified and included in this review. Ten studies collected health outcomes data. Eight related to mental health, which generally showed worse mental health outcomes because of the pandemic, and pandemic-related stressors were identified. Two studies assessed physical health outcomes in children, while none addressed physical health outcomes among adults. Nine studies reported on access to healthcare, revealing worse access levels due to the pandemic and noting key barriers to care. Seven studies reported on the impact on health systems, with key challenges including reduced and distorted health care funding, reduced staff capacity, interrupted medicines and supplies, weak information and mixed-messaging, and weak leadership. All fifteen studies on the social determinants of health, particularly highlighting the effect of increasing poverty, the role of gender, and food insecurity on health outcomes. The quality of papers was limited overall.

CONCLUSION

This review found some limited evidence indicating negative mental health effects, increased barriers to accessing care, damage to health systems and magnified impacts on the social determinants of health for crisis-affected people during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the small number and limited quality of the studies make the overall strength of evidence quite weak.

Understanding health system resilience in responding to COVID-19 pandemic: experiences and lessons from an evolving context of federalization in Nepal

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the resilience capacities of health systems worldwide and highlighted the need to understand the concept, pathways, and elements of resilience in different country contexts. In this study, we assessed the health system response to COVID-19 in Nepal and examined the processes of policy formulation, communication, and implementation at the three tiers of government, including the dynamic interactions between tiers. Nepal was experiencing the early stages of federalization reform when COVID-19 pandemic hit the country, and clarity in roles and capacity to implement functions were the prevailing challenges, especially among the subnational governments.

METHODS

We adopted a cross-sectional exploratory design, using mixed methods. We conducted a desk-based review of all policy documents introduced in response to COVID-19 from January to December 2020, and collected qualitative data through 22 key informant interviews at three tiers of government, during January-March 2021. Two municipalities were purposively selected for data collection in Lumbini province. Our analysis is based on a resilience framework that has been developed by our research project, ReBUILD for Resilience, which helps to understand pathways to health system resilience through absorption, adaptation and transformation.

RESULTS

In the newly established federal structure, the existing emergency response structure and plans were utilized, which were yet to be tested in the decentralized system. The federal government effectively led the policy formulation process, but with minimal engagement of sub-national governments. Local governments could not demonstrate resilience capacities due to the novelty of the federal system and their consequent lack of experience, confusion on roles, insufficient management capacity and governance structures at local level, which was further aggravated by the limited availability of human, technical and financial resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings emphasize the importance of strong and flexible governance structures and strengthened capacity of subnational governments to effectively manage pandemics. The study elaborates on the key areas and pathways that contribute to the resilience capacities of health systems from the experience of Nepal. We draw out lessons that can be applied to other fragile and shock-prone settings.

The Israeli health system's rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic posed numerous challenges to health systems around the world. In addressing many of those challenges, Israel responded quite rapidly. While quick action is not an end in it itself, it can be important in responding to disease outbreaks. Some of Israel's rapid responses to the pandemic contributed significantly to population health and provided important learning opportunities for other countries.

MAIN BODY

Some of the most prominent Israeli rapid responses were related to vaccination. Israel led the world in the pace of its initial vaccine rollout, and it was also the first country to approve and administer booster vaccines to broad segments of the population. In addition, Israeli scholars published a series of timely reports analyzing vaccination impact, which informed policy in Israel and other countries. Israel was a rapid responder in additional areas of public health. These include the partial closure of its borders, the adoption of physical distancing measures, the use of digital surveillance technology for contact tracing, the use of wastewater surveillance to monitor viral spread, and the use of vaccine certificates ("green passes") to facilitate a return to routine in the face of the ongoing pandemic. Many factors contributed to Israel's capacity to repeatedly respond rapidly to a broad array of COVID-19 challenges. These include a national health insurance system that promotes public-private coordination, a system of universal electronic health records, a high level of emergency preparedness, a culture of focusing on goal attainment, a culture of innovation, and the presence of a strong scientific community which is highly connected internationally. In addition, some of the rapid responses (e.g., the rapid initial vaccination rollout) facilitated rapid responses in related areas (e.g., the analysis of vaccination impact, the administration of boosters, and the adoption of green passes). While rapid response can contribute to population health and economic resilience, it can also entail costs, risks, and limitations. These include making decisions and acting before all the relevant information is available; deciding without sufficient consideration of the full range of possible effects, costs, and benefits; not providing enough opportunities for the involvement of relevant groups in the decision-making process; and depleting non-renewable resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, we encourage leaders in the Israeli government to ensure that its emergency response system will continue to have the capacity to respond rapidly to large-scale challenges, whether of a military or civilian nature. At the same time, the emergency response systems should develop mechanisms to include more stakeholders in the fast-paced decision-making process and should improve communication with the public. In addition, they should put into place mechanisms for timely reconsideration, adjustment, and-when warranted-reversal of decisions which, while reasonable when reached, turn out to have been ill-advised in the light of subsequent developments and evidence. These mechanisms could potentially involve any or all branches of government, as well as the public, the press, and professional organizations. Our findings also have implications for health system leaders in other countries. The Israeli experience can help them identify key capacities to develop during non-emergency periods, thus positioning themselves to respond more rapidly in an emergency. Finally, health system leaders in other countries could monitor Israel's rapid responses to future global health emergencies and adopt selected actions in their own countries.

We need to talk about 'bad' resilience

In this analysis, we argue against seeing health system resilience as an inherently positive concept. The rise in the popularity of health system resilience has led to its increasingly normative framing. We question this widely accepted perspective by examining the underlying assumptions associated with this normative framing of 'good' resilience. Our focus is on the risks of accepting the assumption, which can lead us to ignore the social nature of health systems and overlook the consequences of change if resilience is seen as a positive, achievable objective. Finally, we suggest that seeing resilience as a normative concept can be detrimental to health system policy and research, and encourage a critical rethinking of these assumptions so that we can maintain resilience's usefulness for health systems.