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)

Humanizing processes after harm part 1: patient safety incident investigations, litigation and the experiences of those affected

Background

There is a growing international policy focus on involving those affected by healthcare safety incidents, in subsequent investigations. Nonetheless, there remains little UK-based evidence exploring how this relates to the experiences of those affected over time, including the factors influencing decisions to litigate.

Aims

We aimed to explore the experiences of patients, families, staff and legal representatives affected by safety incidents over time, and the factors influencing decisions to litigate.

Methods

Participants were purposively recruited via (i) communication from four NHS hospital Trusts or an independent national investigator in England, (ii) relevant charitable organizations, (iii) social media, and (iv) word of mouth to take part in a qualitative semi-structured interview study. Data were analyzed using an inductive reflexive thematic approach.

Findings

42 people with personal or professional experience of safety incident investigations participated, comprising patients and families (n = 18), healthcare staff (n = 7), legal staff (n = 1), and investigators (n = 16). Patients and families started investigation processes with cautious hope, but over time, came to realize that they lacked power, knowledge, and support to navigate the system, made clear in awaited investigation reports. Systemic fear of litigation not only failed to meet the needs of those affected, but also inadvertently led to some pursuing litigation. Staff had parallel experiences of exclusion, lacking support and feeling left with an incomplete narrative. Importantly, investigating was often perceived as a lonely, invisible and undervalued role involving skilled "work" with limited training, resources, and infrastructure. Ultimately, elusive "organizational agendas" were prioritized above the needs of all affected.

Conclusions

Incident investigations fail to acknowledge and address emotional distress experienced by all affected, resulting in compounded harm. To address this, we propose five key recommendations, to: (1) prioritize the needs of those affected by incidents, (2) overcome culturally engrained fears of litigation to re-humanize processes and reduce rates of unnecessary litigation, (3) recognize and value the emotionally laborious and skilled work of investigators (4) inform and support those affected, (5) proceed in ways that recognize and seek to reduce social inequities.

Involving Patients and/or Their Next of Kin in Serious Adverse Event Investigations: A Qualitative Study on Hospital Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The involvement of patients or next of kin (P/N) after a serious adverse event (SAE) is evolving. Beyond providing mandatory information, there is growing recognition of the need to incorporate their interests. This study explores practical manifestations of P/N involvement and identifies significant considerations for hospitals.

METHODS

The data collection involved various qualitative research methods: 7 focus groups with 56 professionals from 37 hospitals, an interview with 2 representatives from the Dutch Association of Hospitals, and an interactive reflection seminar with over 60 participants from 34 hospitals. Before the focus groups, a brief questionnaire was sent out to survey participants' practices regarding into SAE investigations. After the study, another questionnaire was distributed to gather suggestions for future improvements and to identify their lessons learned. Thematic analysis was applied to the gathered data to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Hospitals are increasingly acknowledging the interests and perspectives of P/N, recognizing their potential contributions to organizational learning and improvement. P/N involvement following SAEs includes active participation in different stages of the investigation process, not just passive information dissemination. Important factors influencing involvement are the provision of (emotional) support, identification of needs, and transparency of the SAE investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study enhances understanding of evolving practices surrounding P/N involvement in the context of SAEs in Dutch hospitals. The findings highlight the importance of promoting meaningful involvement, recognizing the significance of P/N experiences, and fostering a culture of transparency and collaboration. By examining the dynamics of involvement, this research aims to inform policy development and facilitate the implementation of patient-centered approaches to post-SAE care.

Patient perspectives on adverse event investigations in health care

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade attention has grown to give patients and next of kin (P/N) more substantial roles in adverse event investigations. Adverse event investigations occur after adverse events that resulted in death or severe injury. Few studies have focused on patient perspectives on their involvement in such investigations. The present study sets out to investigate how P/N and patient representatives (client councils and the Patient Federation Netherlands) view the involvement of P/N in adverse event investigations, particularly whether and why they want to involved, and how they want to shape their involvement.

METHODS

The study features qualitative data on three levels: interviews with P/N (personal), focus groups with representatives of client councils (institutional), and an interview with the Patient Federation Netherlands (national). Researchers used inductive, thematic analysis and validated the results through data source triangulation.

RESULTS

The initiative taken by the hospitals in this study provided P/N with the space to feel heard and a position as legitimate stakeholder. P/N appreciated the opportunity to choose whether and how they wanted to be involved in the investigation as stakeholders. P/N emphasized the need for hospitals to learn from the investigations, but for them the investigation was also part of a more encompassing relationship. P/N's views showed the inextricable link between the first conversation with the health care professional and the investigation, and the ongoing care after the investigation was finalized. Hence, an adverse event investigation is part of a broader experience when understood from a patient perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

An adverse event investigation should be considered as part of an existing relationship between P/N and hospital that starts before the investigation and continues during follow up care. It is crucial for hospitals to take the initiative in the investigation and in the involvement of P/N. P/N motivations for involvement can be understood as driven by agency or communion. Agentic motivations include being an active participant by choice, while communion motivations include the need to be heard.

Patients' and Caregivers' Suggestions for Improving Assisted Dying Regulation: A Qualitative Study in Australia and Canada

INTRODUCTION

Assisted dying (AD) has been legalised in a small but growing number of jurisdictions globally, including Canada and Australia. Early research in both countries demonstrates that, in response to access barriers, patients and caregivers take action to influence their individual experience of AD, as well as AD systems more widely. This study analyses how patients and caregivers suggest other decision-makers in AD systems should address identified issues.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured, qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers seeking AD in Victoria (Australia) and three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia). Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and codebook template analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty interviews were conducted with 67 participants (65 caregivers, 2 patients). In Victoria, this involved 28 interviews with 33 participants (32 caregivers, 1 patient) about 28 patient experiences. In Canada, this involved 32 interviews with 34 participants (33 caregivers, 1 patient) about 33 patient experiences. We generated six themes, corresponding to six overarching suggestions by patients and caregivers to address identified system issues: (1) improved content and dissemination of information about AD; (2) proactively develop policies and procedures about AD provision; (3) address institutional objection via top-down action; (4) proactively develop grief resources and peer support mechanisms; (5) amend laws to address legal barriers; and (6) engage with and act on patient and caregiver feedback about experiences.

CONCLUSION

AD systems should monitor and respond to suggestions from patients and caregivers with firsthand experience of AD systems, who are uniquely placed to identify issues and suggestions for improvement. To date, Canada has responded comparatively well to address identified issues, whereas the Victorian government has signalled there are no plans to amend laws to address identified access barriers. This may result in patients and caregivers continuing to take on the burdens of acting to address identified issues.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and caregivers are central to this research. We interviewed patients and caregivers about their experiences of AD, and the article focuses on their suggestions for addressing identified barriers within AD systems. Patient interest groups in Australia and Canada also supported our recruitment process.

Influence of external assessment on quality and safety in surgery: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Transparency about the occurrence of adverse events has been a decades-long governmental priority, defining external feedback to healthcare providers as a key measure to improve the services and reduce the number of adverse events. This study aimed to explore surgeons' experiences of assessment by external bodies, with a focus on its impact on transparency, reporting and learning from serious adverse events. External bodies were defined as external inspection, police internal investigation, systems of patient injury compensation and media.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative study design, 15 surgeons were recruited from four Norwegian university hospitals and examined with individual semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed by deductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes were identified, related to influence of external inspection, police investigation, patient injury compensation and media publicity, (re)presented by three categories: (1) sense of criminalisation and reinforcement of guilt, being treated as suspects, (2) lack of knowledge and competence among external bodies causing and reinforcing a sense of clashing cultures between the 'medical and the outside world' with minor influence on quality improvement and (3) involving external bodies could stimulate awareness about internal issues of quality and safety, depending on relevant competence, knowledge and communication skills.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study found that external assessment might generate criminalisation and scapegoating, reinforcing the sense of having medical perspectives on one hand and external regulatory perspectives on the other, which might hinder efforts to improve quality and safety. External bodies could, however, inspire useful adjustment of internal routines and procedures. The study implies that the variety and interconnections between external bodies may expose the surgeons to challenging pressure. Further studies are required to investigate these challenges to quality and safety in surgery.

External inspection approaches and involvement of stakeholders' views in inspection following serious incidents - a qualitative mixed methods study from the perspectives of regulatory inspectors

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to gain knowledge about how external inspections following serious incidents are played out in a Norwegian hospital context from the perspective of the inspectors, and whether stakeholders' views are involved in the inspection.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative mixed methods design, 10 government bureaucrats and inspectors situated at the National Board of Health Supervision and three County Governors in Norway, were strategically recruited, and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key official government documents were selected, collected, and thematically analyzed along with the interview data.

RESULTS

Our findings overall demonstrate two overarching themes: Theme (1) Perspectives on different external inspection approaches of responding and involving stakeholders in external inspection following serious incidents, Theme (2) Inspectors' internal work practices versus external expectations. Documents and all participants reported a development towards new approaches in external inspection, with more policies and regulatory attention to sensible involvement of stakeholders. Involvement and interaction with patients and informal caregivers could potentially inform the case complexity and the inspector's decision-making process. However, stakeholder involvement was sometimes complex and challenging due to e.g., difficult communication and interaction with patients and/or informal caregivers, due to resource demands and/or the inspector's lack of experience and/or relevant competence, different perceptions of the principle of sound professional practice, quality, and safety. The inspectors considered balancing the formal objectives and expectations, with the expectations of the public and different stakeholders (i.e. hospitals, patients and/or informal caregivers) a challenging part of their job. This balance was seen as an important part of the continuous development of ensuring public trust and legitimacy in external inspection processes.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our study suggests that the regulatory system of external inspection and its available approaches of responding to a serious incident in the Norwegian setting is currently not designed to accommodate the complexity of needs from stakeholders at the levels of hospital organizations, patients, and informal caregivers altogether. Further studies should direct attention to how the wider system of accountability structures may support the internal work practices in the regulatory system, to better algin its formal objectives with expectations of the public.

Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families.

METHODS

We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts.

FINDINGS

Fifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes 'Transparency', 'Person-centered' and 'Trustworthy' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, 'Restorative justice' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.

Errors in medicine: punishment versus learning medical adverse events revisited - expanding the frame

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite healthcare workers' best intentions, some patients will suffer harm and even death during their journey through the healthcare system. This represents a major challenge, and many solutions have been proposed during the last decades. How to reduce risk and use adverse events for improvement?

RECENT FINDINGS

The concept of safety culture must be acknowledged and understood for moving from blame to learning. Procedural protocols and reports are only parts of the solution, and this overview paints a broader picture, referring to recent research on the nature of adverse events. The potential harm from advice based on faulty evidence represents a serious risk.

SUMMARY

Focus must shift from an individual perspective to the system, promoting learning rather than punishment and disciplinary sanctions, and the recent opioid epidemic is an example of bad guidelines.

Patient and Family Involvement in Serious Incident Investigations From the Perspectives of Key Stakeholders: A Review of the Qualitative Evidence

OBJECTIVES

Investigations of healthcare harm often overlook the valuable insights of patients and families. Our review aimed to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders when patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations.

METHODS

The authors searched three databases (Medline, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and Connected Papers software for qualitative studies in which patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations until no new articles were found.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven papers were eligible. The perspectives of patients and families, healthcare professionals, nonclinical staff, and legal staff were sought across acute, mental health and maternity settings. Most patients and families valued being involved; however, it was important that investigations were flexible and sensitive to both clinical and emotional aspects of care to avoid compounding harm. This included the following: early active listening with empathy for trauma, sincere and timely apology, fostering trust and transparency, making realistic timelines clear, and establishing effective nonadversarial communication. Most staff perceived that patient and family involvement could improve investigation quality, promote an open culture, and help ensure future safety. However, it was made difficult when multidisciplinary input was absent, workload and staff turnover were high, training and support needs were unmet, and fears surrounded litigation. Potential solutions included enhancing the clarity of roles and responsibilities, adequately training staff, and providing long and short-term support to stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides insights to ensure patient and family involvement in serious incident investigations considers both clinical and emotional aspects of care, is meaningful for all key stakeholders, and avoids compounding harm. However, significant gaps in the literature remain.

Developing Methods to Support Collaborative Learning and Co-creation of Resilient Healthcare-Tips for Success and Lessons Learned From a Norwegian Hospital Cancer Care Study

BACKGROUND

There is a growing attention on the role of patients and stakeholders in resilience, but there is lack of knowledge and methods on how to support collaborative learning between stakeholders and co-creation of resilient healthcare. The aim of this article was to demonstrate how the methodological process of a consensus process for exploring aspects of next of kin involvement in hospital cancer care can be replicated as an effort to promote resilient healthcare through co-creation with multiple stakeholders in hospitals.

METHODS

The study applied a modified nominal group technique process developed by synthesizing research findings across 4 phases of a research project with a mixed-methods approach. The process culminated in a 1-day meeting with 20 stakeholder participants (5 next of kin representatives, 10 oncology nurses, and 5 physicians) from 2 Norwegian university hospitals.

RESULTS

The consensus method established reflexive spaces with collective sharing of experiences between the 2 hospitals and between the next of kin and healthcare professionals. The method promoted collaborative learning processes including identification and reflection upon new ideas for involvement, and reduction of the gap between healthcare professionals' and next of kin experiences and expectations for involvement. Next of kin were considered as important resources for resilient performance, if involved with a proactive approach. The consensus process identified both successful and unsuccessful collaborative practices and resulted in a co-designed guide for healthcare professionals to support next of kin involvement in hospital cancer care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study expands the body of knowledge on methods development that is relevant for collaborative learning and co-creation of resilient healthcare. This study demonstrated that the consensus methods process can be used for creating reflexive spaces to support collaborative learning and co-creation of resilience in cancer care. Future research within the field of collaborative learning should explore interventions that include a larger number of stakeholders.

Adverse event reviews in healthcare: what matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family

OBJECTIVES

Explore what 'good' patient and family involvement in healthcare adverse event reviews may involve.

DESIGN

Data was collected using semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

SETTING

NHS Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

19 interviews were conducted with patients who had experienced an adverse event during the provision of their healthcare or their family member.

RESULTS

Four key themes were derived from these interviews: trauma, communication, learning and litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many advantages of actively involving patients and their families in adverse event reviews. An open, collaborative, person-centred approach which listens to, and involves, patients and their families is perceived to lead to improved outcomes. For the patient and their family, it can help with reconciliation following a traumatic event and help restore their faith in the healthcare system. For the health service, listening and involving people will likely enhance learning with subsequent improvements in healthcare provision with reduction in risk of similar events occurring for other patients. This study suggests eight recommendations for involving patients and families in adverse event reviews using the APICCTHS model (table 3) which includes an apology, person-centred inclusive communication, closing the loop, timeliness, putting patients and families at the heart of the review with appropriate support for staff involved. Communicating in a compassionate manner could also decrease litigation claims following an adverse event.

Linking resilience and regulation across system levels in healthcare – a multilevel study

Background

The Quality Improvement Regulation was introduced to the Norwegian healthcare system in 2017 as a new national regulatory framework to support local quality and safety efforts in hospitals. A research-based response to this, was to develop a study with the overall research question: How does a new healthcare regulation implemented across three system levels contribute to adaptive capacity in hospital management of quality and safety? Based on development and implementation of the Quality Improvement Regulation, this study aims to synthesize findings across macro, meso, and micro-levels in the Norwegian healthcare system.

Methods

The multilevel embedded case study collected data by documents and interviews. A synthesizing approach to findings across subunits was applied in legal dogmatic and qualitative content analysis. Setting: three governmental macro-level bodies, three meso-level County Governors and three micro-level hospitals. Participants: seven macro-level regulators, 12 meso-level chief county medical officers/inspectors and 20 micro-level hospital managers/quality advisers.

Results

Based on a multilevel investigation, three themes were discovered. All system levels considered the Quality Improvement Regulation to facilitate adaptive capacity and recognized contextual flexibility as an important regulatory feature. Participants agreed on uncertainty and variation to hamper the ability to plan and anticipate risk. However, findings identified conflicting views amongst inspectors and hospital managers about their collaboration, with different perceptions of the impact of external inspection. The study found no changes in management- or clinical practices, nor substantial change in the external inspection approach due to the new regulatory framework.

Conclusions

The Quality Improvement Regulation facilitates adaptive capacity, contradicting the assumption that regulation and resilience are “hopeless opposites”. However, governmental expectations to implementation and external inspection were not fully linked with changes in hospital management. Thus, the study identified a missing link in the current regime. We suggest that macro, meso and micro-levels should be considered collaborative partners in obtaining system-wide adaptive capacity, to ensure efficient risk regulation in quality improvement and patient safety processes. Further studies on regulatory processes could explore how hospital management and implementation are influenced by regulators’, inspectors’, and managers’ professional backgrounds, positions, and daily trade-offs to adapt to changes and maintain high quality care.

Resilient and responsive healthcare services and systems: challenges and opportunities in a changing world

Background

Resilient and responsive healthcare systems is on the agenda as ever before. COVID-19, specialization of services, resource demands, and technology development are all examples of aspects leading to adaptations among stakeholders at different system levels whilst also attempting to maintain high service quality and safety. This commentary sets the scene for a journal collection on Resilient and responsive health systems in a changing world. The commentary aims to outline main challenges and opportunities in resilient healthcare theory and practice globally, as a backdrop for contributions to the collection.

Main text

Some of the main challenges in this field relate to a myriad of definitions and approaches to resilience in healthcare, and a lack of studies having multilevel perspectives. Also, the role of patients, families, and the public in resilient and responsive healthcare systems is under researched. By flipping the coin, this illustrates opportunities for research and practice and raise key issues that future resilience research should pay attention to. The potential of combining theoretical lenses from different resilience traditions, involvement of multiple stakeholders in co-creating research and practice improvement, and modelling and visualizing resilient performance are all opportunities to learn more about how healthcare succeeds under stress and normal operations.

Conclusion

A wide understanding of resilience and responsiveness is needed to support planning and preparation for future disasters and for handling the routine small-scale adaptation. This collection welcomes systematic reviews, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research on the topic of resilience and responsiveness in all areas of the health system.

Patient and stakeholder involvement in resilient healthcare: an interactive research study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Resilience in healthcare (RiH) is understood as the capacity of the healthcare system to adapt to challenges and changes at different system levels, to maintain high-quality care. Adaptive capacity is founded in the knowledge, skills and experiences of the people in the system, including patients, family or next of kin, healthcare providers, managers and regulators. In order to learn from and support useful adaptations, research is needed to better understand adaptive capacity and the nature and context of adaptations. This includes research on the actors involved in creating resilient healthcare, and how and in what circumstances different groups of patients and other key healthcare stakeholders enact adaptations that contribute to resilience across all levels of the healthcare system.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This 5-year study applies an interactive design in a two-phased approach to explore and conceptualise patient and stakeholder involvement in resilient healthcare. Study phase 1 is exploratory and will use such data collection methods as literature review, document analysis, interviews and focus groups. Study phase 2 will use a participatory design approach to develop, test and evaluate a conceptual model for patient and stakeholder involvement in RiH. The study will involve patients and other key stakeholders as active participants throughout the research process.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The RiH research programme of which this study is a part is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (No. 864334). Findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, presentations at national and international conferences, through social media and popular press, and by direct engagement with the public, including patient and stakeholder representatives.

Developing a Next-of-Kin Involvement Guide in Cancer Care-Results From a Consensus Process

Background

In hospital cancer care, there is no set standard for next-of-kin involvement in improving the quality of care and patient safety. There is therefore a growing need for tools and methods that can guide this complex area.

Objective

The aim of this study was to present the results from a consensus-based participatory process of designing a guide for next-of-kin involvement in hospital cancer care.

Method

A consensus process based on a modified Nominal group technique was applied with 20 stakeholder participants from 2 Norwegian university hospitals.

Result

The participants agreed on the 5 most important priorities for hospital cancer care services when involving next-of-kin. The results showed that next-of-kin stakeholders, when proactively involved, are important resources for the patient and healthcare professionals in terms of contribution to quality and safety in hospitals. Suggested means of involving next-of-kin were closer interaction with external support bodies, integration in clinical pathways, adjusted information, and training healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

In this study, we identified topics and elements to include in a next-of-kin involvement guide to support quality and safety in hospital cancer care. The study raises awareness of the complex area of next-of-kin involvement and contributes with theory development and knowledge translation in an involvement guide tailored for use by healthcare professionals and managers in everyday clinical practice.

Implications for Practice

Service providers can use the guide to formulate intentions and make decisions with suggestions and priorities or as a reflexive tool for organizational improvement.

Certification as support for resilience? Behind the curtains of a certification body - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Certification in healthcare often involves independent private sector bodies performing legally required or voluntary external assurance activities. These certification practices are embedded in international standards founded in traditional beliefs about rational and predictable processes for quality and safety improvement. Certification can affect organizational and cultural changes, support collaboration and encourage improvement that may be conducive to resilient performance. This study explores whether ISO 9001 quality management system certification can support resilience in healthcare, by looking at characteristics in the objectives, methods, and practice of certification from a certification body's perspective.

METHODS

One of Norway's four certification bodies in healthcare was studied, using an explorative embedded single-case design. The study relies on document analysis of the international standards and associated guidances for the performance of certification bodies and thematic analyses of data from 60 h of observations of auditors in three certification processes and nine qualitative interviews with managers and personnel from the certification body. Results from the analyses were compared to identify discrepancies between the written and perceived certification approach and practice.

RESULTS

Standards and guidances for certification embed an elasticity between formal and consistent assessments of nonconformities in organizations and emphasize holistic approaches that brings added value. Auditors were then left with the latitude to navigate their auditing strategy during interaction with the auditees. Members of the certification body perceived and practiced a holistic and flexible auditing approach using opportunities to share knowledge, empower and make guidance for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

ISO certification expects structures and systems to ensure consistent and objective certification processes. At the same time, it embodies a latitude to adopt flexible and context-specific certification approaches, as demonstrated by a certification body in this study, to give added value to the certified organizations. Such an ISO 9001 certification approach may support resilient performance in healthcare by nurturing the potential to respond and learn. These results are important for further development of methods that certification bodies use in the auditing encounter.

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries

Background

In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice.

Methods

The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt.

Results

Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions.

Conclusions

Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard.

The patient died: What about involvement in the investigation process?

Patient and family involvement is high on the international quality and safety agenda. In this paper, we consider possible ways of involving families in investigations of fatal adverse events and how their greater participation might improve the quality of investigations. The aim is to increase awareness among healthcare professionals, accident investigators, policymakers and researchers and examine how research and practice can develop in this emerging field. In contrast to relying mainly on documentation and staff recollections, family involvement can result in the investigation having access to richer information, a more holistic picture of the event and new perspectives on who was involved and can positively contribute to the family’s emotional satisfaction and perception of justice being done. There is limited guidance and research on how to constitute effective involvement. There is a need for co-designing the investigation process, explicitly agreeing the family’s level of involvement, supporting and preparing the family, providing easily accessible user-friendly language and using different methods of involvement (e.g. individual interviews, focus group interviews and questionnaires), depending on the family’s needs.

Defining the boundaries and operational concepts of resilience in the resilience in healthcare research program

BACKGROUND

Understanding the resilience of healthcare is critically important. A resilient healthcare system might be expected to consistently deliver high quality care, withstand disruptive events and continually adapt, learn and improve. However, there are many different theories, models and definitions of resilience and most are contested and debated in the literature. Clear and unambiguous conceptual definitions are important for both theoretical and practical considerations of any phenomenon, and resilience is no exception. A large international research programme on Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) is seeking to address these issues in a 5-year study across Norway, England, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, and Switzerland (2018-2023). The aims of this debate paper are: 1) to identify and select core operational concepts of resilience from the literature in order to consider their contributions, implications, and boundaries for researching resilience in healthcare; and 2) to propose a working definition of healthcare resilience that underpins the international RiH research programme.

MAIN TEXT

To fulfil these aims, first an overview of three core perspectives or metaphors that underpin theories of resilience are introduced from ecology, engineering and psychology. Second, we present a brief overview of key definitions and approaches to resilience applicable in healthcare. We position our research program with collaborative learning and user involvement as vital prerequisite pillars in our conceptualisation and operationalisation of resilience for maintaining quality of healthcare services. Third, our analysis addresses four core questions that studies of resilience in healthcare need to consider when defining and operationalising resilience. These are: resilience 'for what', 'to what', 'of what', and 'through what'? Finally, we present our operational definition of resilience.

CONCLUSION

The RiH research program is exploring resilience as a multi-level phenomenon and considers adaptive capacity to change as a foundation for high quality care. We, therefore, define healthcare resilience as: the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes at different system levels, to maintain high quality care. This working definition of resilience is intended to be comprehensible and applicable regardless of the level of analysis or type of system component under investigation.