Organizational learning in surgery in Tanzania's health system: a descriptive cross-sectional study

Organizational learning is critical for delivering safe, high-quality surgical care, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where perioperative outcomes remain poor. While current investments in LMICs prioritize physical infrastructure, equipment, and staffing, investments in organizational learning are equally important to support innovation, creativity, and continuous improvement of surgical quality. This study aims to assess the extent to which health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone perform as learning organizations from the perspectives of surgical providers. The insights gained from this study can motivate future quality improvement initiatives and investments to improve surgical outcomes. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from an adapted survey to explore the key components of organizational learning, including a supportive learning environment, effective learning processes, and encouraging leadership. Our sample included surgical team members and leaders at 20 facilities (health centers, district hospitals, and regional hospitals). We calculated the average of the responses at individual facilities. Responses that were 5+ on a 7-point scale or 4+ on a 5-point scale were considered positive. We examined the variation in responses by facility characteristics using a one-way ANOVA or Student's t-test. We used univariate and multiple regression to assess relationships between facility characteristics and perceptions of organizational learning. Ninety-eight surgical providers and leaders participated in the survey. The mean facility positive response rate was 95.1% (SD 6.1%). Time for reflection was the least favorable domain with a score of 62.5% (SD 35.8%). There was variation by facility characteristics including differences in time for reflection when comparing by level of care (P = .02) and location (P = .01), and differences in trying new approaches (P = .008), capacity building (P = .008), and information transfer (P = .01) when comparing public versus faith-based facilities. In multivariable analysis, suburban centers had less time for reflection than urban facilities (adjusted difference = -0.48; 95% CI: -0.95, -0.01; P = .046). Surgical team members reported more positive responses compared to surgical team leaders. We found a high overall positive response rate in characterizing organizational learning in surgery in 20 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone. Our findings identify areas for improvement and provide a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of change initiatives. Future research should focus on validating the adapted survey and exploring the impact of strong learning environments on surgical outcomes in LMICs. Organizational learning is crucial in surgery and further research, funding, and policy work should be dedicated to improving learning cultures in health facilities.

Health systems resilience in fragile and conflict-affected settings: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health systems resilience (HSR) research is a rapidly expanding field, in which key concepts are discussed and theoretical frameworks are emerging with vibrant debate. Fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) are contexts exposed to compounding stressors, for which resilience is an important characteristic. However, only limited evidence has been generated in such settings. We conducted a scoping review to: (a) identify the conceptual frameworks of HSR used in the analysis of shocks and stressors in FCAS; (b) describe the representation of different actors involved in health care governance and service provision in these settings; and (c) identify health systems operations as they relate to absorption, adaptation, and transformation in FCAS.

METHODS

We used standard, extensive search methods. The search captured studies published between 2006 and January 2022. We included all peer reviewed and grey literature that adopted a HSR lens in the analysis of health responses to crises. Thematic analysis using both inductive and deductive approaches was conducted, adopting frameworks related to resilience characteristics identified by Kruk et al., and the resilience capacities described by Blanchet et al. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met our inclusion criteria. The governance-centred, capacity-oriented framework for HSR emerged as the most frequently used lens of analysis to describe the health responses to conflict and chronic violence specifically. Most studies focused on public health systems' resilience analysis, while the private health sector is only examined in complementarity with the former. Communities are minimally represented, despite their widely acknowledged role in supporting HSR. The documentation of operations enacting HSR in FCAS is focused on absorption and adaptation, while transformation is seldom described. Absorptive, adaptive, and transformative interventions are described across seven different domains: safety and security, society, health system governance, stocks and supplies, built environment, health care workforce, and health care services.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review findings suggest that the governance-centred framework can be useful to better understand HSR in FCAS. Future HSR research should document adaptive and transformative strategies that advance HSR, particularly in relation to actions intended to promote the safety and security of health systems, the built environment for health, and the adoption of a social justice lens.

A management perspective on resilience in healthcare: a framework and avenues for future research

Recent major health shocks, such as the 2014-16 Ebola, the Zika outbreak, and, last but not least, the COVID-19 pandemic, have strongly contributed to drawing attention to the issue of resilience in the healthcare domain. Nevertheless, the scientific literature appears fragmented, creating difficulties in developing incremental research in this relevant managerial field.To fill this gap, this systematic literature review aims to provide a clear state of the art of the literature dealing with resilience in healthcare. Specifically, from the analysis of the theoretical articles and reviews, the key dimensions of resilience are identified, and a novel classification framework is proposed. The classification framework is then used to systematize extant empirical contributions. Two main dimensions of resilience are identified: the approach to resilience (reactive vs. proactive) and the type of crisis to deal with (acute shocks vs. chronic stressors). Four main streams of research are thus identified: (i) proactive approaches to acute shocks; (ii) proactive approaches to chronic stressors; (iii) reactive approaches to acute shocks; and (iv) reactive approaches to chronic stressors. These are scrutinised considering three additional dimensions: the level of analysis, the resources to nurture resilience, and the country context. The classification framework and the associated mapping contribute to systematising the fragmented literature on resilience in healthcare, providing a clear picture of the state of the art in this field and drawing a research agenda that opens interesting paths for future research.

Strengthening national public health institutes: a systematic review on institution building in the public sector

Introduction

Strong and efficient institutions are vital to the development of well-functioning governments and strong societies. The term "institution building" encompasses the creation, support, development, and strengthening of organizations and institutions. Still, there is little aggregated evidence on "institution building" considering a wider system-thinking approach, best practices, or development cooperation specifically in the field of public health. In 2007, the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) created a guiding Framework that countries may use for developing National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs). This Framework is currently being revised.

Methods

In this context, we conducted a systematic review to facilitate this revision with recent evidence on institution building and its potential contribution to NPHI. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, searching for relevant publications in seven scientific databases (Pubmed, VHL/LILACS, EconLit, Google Scholar, Web of Science, World Affairs Online, ECONBIZ) and four libraries (World Bank; European Health for All database of the World Health Organization European Region, WHO; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD; and the African Union Common Repository). The search was carried out in October 2021. We used the "framework analysis" tool for systematically processing documents according to key themes.

Results

As a result, we identified 3,015 records, of which we included 62 documents in the final review. This systematic review fills a major gap of aggregated information on institution building in the field of public health and National Public Health Institutes. It is to our knowledge the first systematic review of this kind. The overriding result is the identification and definition of six domains of institution building in the health sector: "governance," "knowledge and innovation," "inter-institutional cooperation," "monitoring and control," "participation," and "sustainability and context-specific adaptability."

Discussion

Our results show that the described domains are highly relevant to the public health sector, and that managers and the scientific community recognize their importance. Still, they are often not applied consistently when creating or developing NPHIs. We conclude that organizations engaged in institution building of NPHIs, including IANPHI, may greatly benefit from state-of-the-art research on institution building as presented in this study.

Health systems resilience in practice: a scoping review to identify strategies for building resilience

Background

Research on health systems resilience has focused primarily on the theoretical development of the concept and its dimensions. There is an identified knowledge gap in the research on how to build resilience in health systems in practice and ‘what works’ in different contexts. The aim of this study is to identify practical strategies for building resilient health systems from the empirical research on health systems resilience.

Methods

A scoping review included empirical research on health systems resilience from peer-reviewed literature. The search in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Global Health was conducted during January to March 2021 for articles published in English between 2013 to February 2021. A total of 1771 articles were screened, and data was extracted from 22 articles. The articles included empirical, applied research on strategies for resilience, that observed or measured resilience during shocks or chronic stress through collection of primary data or analysis of secondary data, or if they were a review study of empirical research. A narrative summary was done by identifying action-oriented strategies, comparing them, and presenting them by main thematic areas.

Results

The results demonstrate examples of strategies used or recommended within nine identified thematic areas; use of community resources, governance and financing, leadership, surveillance, human resources, communication and collaboration, preparedness, organizational capacity and learning and finally health system strengthening.

Conclusions

The findings emphasize the importance of improved governance and financing, empowered middle-level leadership, improved surveillance systems and strengthened human resources. A re-emphasized focus on health systems strengthening with better mainstreaming of health security and international health regulations are demonstrated in the results as a crucial strategy for building resilience. A lack of strategies for recovery and lessons learnt from crises are identified as gaps for resilience in future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08544-8.

Medical Students’ Perception Regarding Health Policy Teaching and Their Participation in Health Policy Roles: A Survey at a Public University in Malaysia

Background: Health policy is a set of comprehensive principles and legislations that guide how healthcare should be effectively delivered in the community. Medical schools should prepare students to undertake managerial responsibilities by incorporating health policy into the curriculum to deal with the intricacies of healthcare systems and their clinical roles in their future professional careers. Objective: To examine medical students’ perception at a Public University in Malaysia regarding teaching health policy and their participation in health policy roles. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study using universal sampling was carried out among the medical students using a paper-based questionnaire to collect the data. Results: Most respondents opined their willingness to learn health policy (80.9%) and that teaching health policy (83.6%) should be compulsory for medical students. The respondents thought health policy should be introduced earlier in Year 1 or 2. The student scores on their knowledge regarding health policy and year of study were significantly associated with their involvement in the health policy roles in both the simple and multiple logistic regression. Both statistical tests reported higher participation in health policy roles with the higher year of study, though only Year 4 and 5 were significant in the simple logistic regression and only Year 5 in the multiple logistic regression compared to Year 1. On the other hand, age and type of admission show significant results only in the simple logistic regression, while the race was only significant at the multivariate level. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that most respondents showed their willingness to learn health policy, participate in the health policy programs, and recommend that health policy be considered an essential topic in the medical curriculum, which should be taught right from the first year of medical school. We recommend encouraging students’ participation in health policy activities.

Conceptualising and assessing health system resilience to shocks: a cross-disciplinary view

Health systems worldwide face major challenges in anticipating, planning for and responding to shocks from infectious disease epidemics, armed conflict, climatic and other crises. Although the literature on health system resilience has grown substantially in recent years, major uncertainties remain concerning approaches to resilience conceptualisation and measurement. This narrative review revisits literatures from a range of fields outside health to identify lessons relevant to health systems. Four key insights emerge. Firstly, shocks can only be understood by clarifying how, where and over what timescale they interact with a system of interest, and the dynamic effects they produce within it. Shock effects are contingent on historical path-dependencies, and on the presence of factors or system pathways (e.g. financing models, health workforce capabilities or supply chain designs) that may amplify or dampen impact in unexpected ways. Secondly, shocks often produce cascading effects across multiple scales, whereas the focus of much of the health resilience literature has been on macro-level, national systems. In reality, health systems bring together interconnected sub-systems across sectors and geographies, with different components, behaviours and sometimes even objectives - all influencing how a system responds to a shock. Thirdly, transformability is an integral feature of resilient social systems: cross-scale interactions help explain how systems can show both resilience and transformational capability at the same time. We illustrate these first three findings by extending the socioecological concept of adaptive cycles in social systems to health, using the example of maternal and child health service delivery. Finally, we argue that dynamic modelling approaches, under-utilised in research on health system resilience to date, have significant promise for identification of shock-moderating or shock-amplifying pathways, for understanding effects at multiple levels and ultimately for building resilience.

Social accountability and health systems' change, beyond the shock of Covid-19: drawing on histories of technical and activist approaches to rethink a shared code of practice

BACKGROUND

Recognition of the value of "social accountability" to improve health systems performance and to address health inequities, has increased over the last decades, with different schools of thought engaging in robust dialogue. This article explores the tensions between health policy and systems research and practice on the one hand, and health equity-focussed activism on the other, as distinct yet interacting processes that have both been impacted by the shock effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. This extended commentary brings multidisciplinary voices seeking to look back at health systems history and fundamental social-institutional systems' behaviors in order to contextualize these current debates over how best to push social accountability efforts forward.

ANALYSIS

There is a documented history of tension between long and short processes of international health cooperation and intervention. Social accountability approaches, as a more recent strategy to improve health systems performance, intersect with this overarching history of negotiation between differently situated actors both global and local on whether to pursue sustained, slow, often community-driven change or to focus on rapid, measurable, often top-down interventions. Covid-19, as a global public health emergency, resulted in calls for urgent action which have unsurprisingly displaced some of the energy and aspiration for systemic transformation processes. A combination of accountability approaches and mechanisms have their own legitimacy in fostering health systems change, demanding collaboration between those that move both fast and slow, top-down and bottom-up.

CONCLUSION

We argue that social accountability, much like all efforts to strengthen health systems, is "everybody's business" and that we must understand better the historical processes that have shaped the field of practice over time to move forward. These differences of perspective, knowledge-base and positioning vis-a-vis interventions or longer-term political commitment should not drive a conflict of legitimacy but instead be named, subsequently enabling the development of a shared code of conduct that applies to the breadth of actors involved in social accountability work. If we are concerned about the state of/status of social accountability within the context of "building back better" we must approach collaboration with a willingness to create dialogue across distinct disciplinary, technical and politically-informed ways of working.

On Learning About Efforts to Strengthen (and Reduce Harm to) Systems for Health

We comment on two embedded case studies of systems effects of successive mid-size projects looking back over 7-10 years, published in Health Policy and Planning. The papers examine humanitarian projects in Sudan and Pakistan and development projects (integrated Community Case Management) in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Mozambique. In this commentary, we summarize the two papers and discuss the overarching substantive and methodological lessons learned. In both development and humanitarian/emergency practice, projects navigate a dynamic space between gap-filling, systems support, and systems strengthening. In this, their contribution to systems strengthening depends heavily on the eco-system of government, development partners, and donors. Systems strengthening presents great challenges in definition, implementation, and measurement. Nonetheless, project implementers can and should renew their commitment to strengthening systems for health. This comes with a fundamental requirement for learning and evaluation.

'We have a plan for that': a qualitative study of health system resilience through the perspective of health workers managing antenatal and childbirth services during floods in Cambodia

OBJECTIVE

Health system resilience can increase a system's ability to deal with shocks like floods. Studying health systems that currently exhibit the capacity for resilience when shocked could enhance our understanding about what generates and influences resilience. This study aimed to generate empirical knowledge on health system resilience by exploring how public antenatal and childbirth health services in Cambodia have absorbed, adapted or transformed in response to seasonal and occasional floods.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis and informed by the Dimensions of Resilience Governance framework.

SETTING

Public sector healthcare facilities and health departments in two districts exposed to flooding.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three public sector health professionals with experience providing or managing antenatal and birth services during recent flooding.

RESULTS

The theme 'Collaboration across the system creates adaptability in the response' reflects how collaboration and social relationships among providers, staff and the community have delineated boundaries for actions and decisions for services during floods. Floods were perceived as having a modest impact on health services. Knowing the boundaries on decision-making and having preparation and response plans let staff prepare and respond in a flexible yet stable way. The theme was derived from ideas of (1) seasonal floods as a minor strain on the system compared with persistent, system-wide organisational stresses the system already experiences, (2) the ability of the health services to adjust and adapt flood plans, (3) a shared purpose and working process during floods, (4) engagement at the local level to fulfil a professional duty to the community, and (5) creating relationships between health system levels and the community to enable flood response.

CONCLUSION

The capacity to absorb and adapt to floods was seen among the public sector services. Strategies that enhance stability and flexibility may foster the capacity for health system resilience.

Analyzing Healthcare Facility Resilience: Scientometric Review and Knowledge Map

In contemporary “high-risk” society, unexpected disasters (epidemics and extreme weather) and chronic pressures (aging problems) put tremendous pressure on healthcare facilities. Enhancing the healthcare facilities' resilience ability to resist, absorb, and respond to disaster disruptions is urgent. This study presents a scientometric review for healthcare facility resilience research. A total of 374 relevant articles published between 2000 and 2020, collected from Web of Science (WoS) core collection database, Scopus database and MEDLINE database were reviewed and analyzed. The results indicated that research on resilience in healthcare facilities went through three development periods, and the research involved countries or institutions that are relatively scattered. The studies have been focused on the subject categories of engineering, public, environmental, and occupational health. The keywords of “resilience,” “hospital,” “disaster,” “healthcare,” and “healthcare facility” had the most frequency. Furthermore, based on the literature co-citation networks and content analysis, the detected seven co-citation clusters were grouped into four knowledge domains: climate change impact, strengthening resilience in response to war and epidemic, resilience assessment of healthcare facility, and the applications of information system. Moreover, the timeline view of literature reflected the evolution of each domain. Finally, a knowledge map for resilience of healthcare facilities was put forward, in which critical research contents, current knowledge gaps, and future research work were discussed. This contribution will promote researchers and practitioners to detect the hot topics, fill the knowledge gaps, and extend the body of research on resilience of healthcare facilities.

The role of integrated community case management projects in strengthening health systems: case study analysis in Ethiopia, Malawi and Mozambique

Integrated community case management (iCCM) has now been implemented at scale globally. Literature to-date has focused primarily on the effectiveness of iCCM and the systems conditions required to sustain iCCM. In this study, we sought to explore opportunities taken and lost for strengthening health systems through successive iCCM programmes. We employed a systematic, embedded, multiple case study design for three countries-Ethiopia, Malawi and Mozambique-where Save the Children implemented iCCM programmes between 2009 and 2017. We used textual analysis to code 62 project documents on nine categories of functions of health systems using NVivo 11.0. The document review was supplemented by four key informant interviews. This study makes important contributions to the theoretical understanding of the role of projects in health systems strengthening by not only documenting evidence of systems strengthening in multi-year iCCM projects, but also emphasizing important deficiencies in systems strengthening efforts. Projects operated on a spectrum, ranging from gap-filling interventions, to support, to actual strengthening. While there were natural limits to the influence of a project on the health system, all successive projects found constructive opportunities to try to strengthen systems. Alignment with the Ministry of Health was not always static and simple, and ministries themselves have shown pluralism in their perspectives and orientations. We conclude that systems strengthening remains 'everybody's business' and places demands for realism and transparency on government and the development architecture. While mid-size projects have limited decision space, there is value in better defining where systems strengthening contributions can actually be made. Furthermore, systems strengthening is not solely about macro-level changes, as operational and efficiency gains at meso and micro levels can have value to the system. Claims of 'systems strengthening' are, however, bounded within the quality of evaluation and learning investments.

Learning for Universal Health Coverage

The journey to universal health coverage (UHC) is full of challenges, which to a great extent are specific to each country. 'Learning for UHC' is a central component of countries' health system strengthening agendas. Our group has been engaged for a decade in facilitating collective learning for UHC through a range of modalities at global, regional and national levels. We present some of our experience and draw lessons for countries and international actors interested in strengthening national systemic learning capacities for UHC. The main lesson is that with appropriate collective intelligence processes, digital tools and facilitation capacities, countries and international agencies can mobilise the many actors with knowledge relevant to the design, implementation and evaluation of UHC policies. However, really building learning health systems will take more time and commitment. Each country will have to invest substantively in developing its specific learning systemic capacities, with an active programme of work addressing supportive leadership, organisational culture and knowledge management processes.