Challenges and insights in inter-organizational collaborative healthcare networks

Resilience of hospitals in an age of disruptions: a systematic literature review on resources and capabilities

Hospitals play a critical role in ensuring continuous and effective healthcare delivery, especially during crises. However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in hospital systems, prompting a need to enhance resilience-the ability to withstand, absorb, respond to, recover from, and learn from disasters. A systematic literature review, grounded in the resource-based view, identified organizational characteristics, in terms of resources and capabilities, and their synergistic effects that bolster hospital resilience. The results demonstrate that digital technologies impact on anticipation and adaptation abilities, organizational capabilities to reorganize roles, tasks, and spaces enhance adaptability, and Inter-organizational collaborations increase the responsiveness of the hospitals. The study provides substantial theoretical and practical contributions. It expands knowledge of hospital resilience in light of recent disruptive events and promotes integration capabilities as determinants for the majority of resilience dimensions. All organisational and inter-organisational collaboration, cooperation, and coordination are deemed crucial for hospital resilience.

Unravelling collaborative governance dynamics within healthcare networks: a scoping review

In many countries, healthcare systems suffer from fragmentation between hospitals and primary care. In response, many governments institutionalized healthcare networks (HN) to facilitate integration and efficient healthcare delivery. Despite potential benefits, the implementation of HN is often challenged by inefficient collaborative dynamics that result in delayed decision-making, lack of strategic alignment and lack of reciprocal trust between network members. Yet, limited attention has been paid to the collective dynamics, challenges and enablers for effective inter-organizational collaborations. To consider these issues, we carried out a scoping review to identify the underlying processes for effective inter-organizational collaboration and the contextual conditions within which these processes are triggered. Following appropriate methodological guidance for scoping reviews, we searched four databases [PubMed (n = 114), Web of Science (n = 171), Google Scholar (n = 153) and Scopus (n = 52)] and used snowballing (n = 22). A total of 37 papers addressing HN including hospitals were included. We used a framework synthesis informed by the collaborative governance framework to guide data extraction and analysis, while being sensitive to emergent themes. Our review showed the prominence of balancing between top-down and bottom-up decision-making (e.g. strategic vs steering committees), formal procedural arrangements and strategic governing bodies in stimulating participative decision-making, collaboration and sense of ownership. In a highly institutionalized context, the inter-organizational partnership is facilitated by pre-existing legal frameworks. HN are suitable for tackling wicked healthcare issues by mutualizing resources, staff pooling and improved coordination. Overall performance depends on the capacity of partners for joint action, principled engagement and a closeness culture, trust relationships, shared commitment, distributed leadership, power sharing and interoperability of information systems To promote the effectiveness of HN, more bottom-up participative decision-making, formalization of governance arrangement and building trust relationships are needed. Yet, there is still inconsistent evidence on the effectiveness of HN in improving health outcomes and quality of care.

Towards achieving interorganisational collaboration between health-care providers: a realist evidence synthesis

Background

Interorganisational collaboration is currently being promoted to improve the performance of NHS providers. However, up to now, there has, to the best of our knowledge, been no systematic attempt to assess the effect of different approaches to collaboration or to understand the mechanisms through which interorganisational collaborations can work in particular contexts.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) explore the main strands of the literature about interorganisational collaboration and to identify the main theoretical and conceptual frameworks, (2) assess the empirical evidence with regard to how different interorganisational collaborations may (or may not) lead to improved performance and outcomes, (3) understand and learn from NHS evidence users and other stakeholders about how and where interorganisational collaborations can best be used to support turnaround processes, (4) develop a typology of interorganisational collaboration that considers different types and scales of collaboration appropriate to NHS provider contexts and (5) generate evidence-informed practical guidance for NHS providers, policy-makers and others with responsibility for implementing and assessing interorganisational collaboration arrangements.

Design

A realist synthesis was carried out to develop, test and refine theories about how interorganisational collaborations work, for whom and in what circumstances.

Data sources

Data sources were gathered from peer-reviewed and grey literature, realist interviews with 34 stakeholders and a focus group with patient and public representatives.

Review methods

Initial theories and ideas were gathered from scoping reviews that were gleaned and refined through a realist review of the literature. A range of stakeholder interviews and a focus group sought to further refine understandings of what works, for whom and in what circumstances with regard to high-performing interorganisational collaborations.

Results

A realist review and synthesis identified key mechanisms, such as trust, faith, confidence and risk tolerance, within the functioning of effective interorganisational collaborations. A stakeholder analysis refined this understanding and, in addition, developed a new programme theory of collaborative performance, with mechanisms related to cultural efficacy, organisational efficiency and technological effectiveness. A series of translatable tools, including a diagnostic survey and a collaboration maturity index, were also developed.

Limitations

The breadth of interorganisational collaboration arrangements included made it difficult to make specific recommendations for individual interorganisational collaboration types. The stakeholder analysis focused exclusively on England, UK, where the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for fieldwork.

Conclusions

Implementing successful interorganisational collaborations is a difficult, complex task that requires significant time, resource and energy to achieve the collaborative functioning that generates performance improvements. A delicate balance of building trust, instilling faith and maintaining confidence is required for high-performing interorganisational collaborations to flourish.

Future work

Future research should further refine our theory by incorporating other workforce and user perspectives. Research into digital platforms for interorganisational collaborations and outcome measurement are advocated, along with place-based and cross-sectoral partnerships, as well as regulatory models for overseeing interorganisational collaborations.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019149009.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An integrative perspective on interorganizational multilevel healthcare networks: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Interorganizational networks in healthcare do not always attain their goals. Existing models outline the factors that could explain poor network performance: governance; structure; and the alignment of professional, organizational and network levels. However, these models are very generic and assume a functional approach. We investigate available empirical knowledge on how network structure and governance relate to each other and to network performance in a multilevel context, to get deeper insight, supported with empirics, of why networks (fail to) achieve their goals.

METHOD

A systematic literature review based on a search of Web of Science, Business Source Complete and PubMed was executed in May 2021 and repeated in January 2022. Full papers were included if they were written in English and reported empirical data in a healthcare interorganizational setting. Included papers were coded for the topics of governance, structure, performance and multilevel networks. Papers from the scientific fields of management, administration and healthcare were compared. Document citation and bibliographic coupling networks were visualized using Vosviewer, and network measures were calculated with UCINET.

RESULTS

Overall, 184 papers were included in the review, most of which were from healthcare journals. Research in healthcare journals is primarily interested in the quality of care, while research in management and administration journals tend to focus on efficiency and financial aspects. Cross-citation is limited across different fields. Networks with a brokered form of governance are the most prevalent. Network performance is mostly measured at the community level. Only a few studies employed a multilevel perspective, and interaction effects were not usually measured between levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on healthcare networks is fragmented across different scientific fields. The current review revealed a range of positive, negative and mixed effects and points to the need for more empirical research to identify the underlying reasons for these outcomes. Hardly any empirical research is available on the effects of different network structures and governance modes on healthcare network performance at different levels. We find a need for more empirical research to study healthcare networks at multiple levels while acknowledging hybrid governance models that may apply across different levels.

Navigating new organisation forms: a qualitative study of primary care networks

BACKGROUND

NHS England (NHSE) instigated primary care networks (PCNs) as a collaboration of general practices working together at scale to improve population health in the local community.

AIM

To capture GP PCN leaders' perceptions of the opportunities and pitfalls of PCNs, as well as points of learning, during their inception and development, in order to guide the future development of PCN form and function.

DESIGN & SETTING

A qualitative study in UK primary care.

METHOD

Nine PCN GP leaders were interviewed in depth to gather their views and experiences of PCNs. In addition, 31 free-text survey responses pertaining to how participants perceived the purpose of PCNs were collated.

RESULTS

Four key themes were identified: defining purpose and managing ambiguity; bureaucracy versus local autonomy; relational working; and facilitative leadership. The need for purpose setting to remain adaptive was seen as crucial in avoiding the constraints of too rigid a structure in order to retain local ownership, while remaining focused around meeting complex population needs and reducing variation. Participants reported navigating their way through striking a balance between the 'top-down' mandate and recognising local need. Of importance to the success of PCNs was the necessity of effective relational working and facilitative leadership.

CONCLUSION

While the desire to be proactive and collaborative was emphasised by the PCN leaders, the importance of distributed leadership and time given to building trust and effective working relationships within new organisational forms cannot be underestimated.

When trust, confidence, and faith collide: refining a realist theory of how and why inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work

BACKGROUND

Health systems are facing unprecedented socioeconomic pressures as well as the need to cope with the ongoing strain brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the reconfiguration of health systems to encourage greater collaboration and integration has been promoted with a variety of collaborative shapes and forms being encouraged and developed. Despite this continued interest, evidence for success of these various arrangements is lacking, with the links between collaboration and improved performance often remaining uncertain. To date, many examinations of collaborations have been undertaken, but use of realist methodology may shed additional light on how and why collaboration works, and whom it benefits.

METHODS

This paper seeks to test initial context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) of interorganisational collaboration with the view to producing a refined realist theory. This phase of the realist synthesis used case study and evaluation literature; combined with supplementary systematic searches. These searches were screened for rigour and relevance, after which CMOCs were extracted from included literature and compared against existing ones for refinement, refutation, or affirmation. We also identified demi-regularities to better explain how these CMOCs were interlinked.

RESULTS

Fifty-one papers were included, from which 338 CMOCs were identified, where many were analogous. This resulted in new mechanisms such as 'risk threshold' and refinement of many others, including trust, confidence, and faith, into more well-defined constructs. Refinement and addition of CMOCs enabled the creation of a 'web of causality' depicting how contextual factors form CMOC chains which generate outputs of collaborative behaviour. Core characteristics of collaborations, such as whether they were mandated or cross-sector, were explored for their proposed impact according to the theory.

CONCLUSION

The formulation of this refined realist theory allows for greater understanding of how and why collaborations work and can serve to inform both future work in this area and the implementation of these arrangements. Future work should delve deeper into collaborative subtypes and the underlying drivers of collaborative performance.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review is part of a larger realist synthesis, registered at PROSPERO with ID CRD42019149009 .

Leading through the ‘new normality’ of health care

Health care institutions are witnessing a ‘new normality’, which profoundly reshapes the strategic and management challenges faced by health professionals in their attempt to achieve excellence in the design and delivery of care. This ‘new normality’ triggers a transformation of conventional managing models and leadership styles, which have proved to be unfit with the changed attributes of the external and internal contexts of health care organizations. The ‘new normal’ leadership style relies on the ability of leaders to make sense out of the new challenges that are faced by health care organizations and on their capability to act managerially, sticking to an empowering approach which enables followers. However, the transformation of conventional leadership style is impossible if a rethinking of training activities and learning experiences delivered to health professionals is missing. The article provides an overview of the issues that health leaders and managers encounter in the ‘new normality’ of health care, identifying several unanswered questions which should be addressed to thrive in the changed landscape of health services’ delivery.

Inter-organizational collaboration between healthcare providers

Across OECD countries, healthcare organizations increasingly rely on inter-organizational collaboration (IOC). Yet, systematic insight into the relations across different healthcare sectors is lacking. The aim of this explorative study is twofold. First, to understand how IOC differs across healthcare sectors with regards to characteristics, motives and the role of health policy. Second, to understand which potential effects healthcare executives consider prior to the establishment of the collaborations. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among a representative panel of Dutch healthcare executives from medium-sized or large healthcare organizations. Almost half (n = 344, 48%) of the invited executives participated. Our results suggest that differences in policy changes and institutional developments across healthcare sectors affect the scope and type of IOC: hospitals generally operate in small horizontal collaborations, while larger and more complex mixed and non-horizontal collaborations are more present among nursing homes, disability care and mental care organizations. We find that before establishing IOCs, most healthcare executives conduct a self-assessment including the potential effects of the collaboration. The extensive overview of policy developments, collaboration types and intended outcomes presented in our study offers a useful starting point for a more in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of collaborations among healthcare organizations.

Exploiting Inter-Organizational Relationships in Health Care: A Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review

Inter-organizational relationships are high on the health policy agenda. Scholars and practitioners have provided heterogeneous views about the triggers of collaborative practices and the success factors that underpin the sustainability of inter-organizational relationships in the health care domain. The article proposes a literature review aimed at systematizing current scientific research that contextualizes inter-organizational relationships to health care. A mixed approach was undertaken, which consisted of a bibliometric analysis followed by a narrative literature review. A tailored search strategy on Elsevier’s Scopus yielded 411 relevant records, which were carefully screened for inclusion in this study. After screening, 105 papers were found to be consistent with the study purposes and included in this literature review. The findings emphasize that the establishment and implementation of inter-organizational relationships in health care are affected by several ambiguities, which concern both the governance and the structuring of collaborative relationships. The viability and the success of inter-organizational relationships depend on the ability of both central and peripheral partners to acknowledge and address such ambiguities. Failure to do so involves an opportunistic participation to inter-organizational relationships. This endangers conflicting behaviors rather than collaboration among partners.

Complexity in partnerships: A qualitative examination of collaborative depression care in primary care clinics and community-based organisations in California, United States

Partnering across health clinics and community organisations, while worthwhile for improving health and well-being, is challenging and time consuming. Even partnerships that have essential elements for success in place face inevitable challenges. To better understand how cross-organisational partnerships work in practice, this paper examines collaborations between six primary care clinics and community-based organisations in the United States that were part of an initiative to address late-life depression using an enhanced collaborative care model (Archstone Foundation Care Partners Project). As part of an evaluation of the Care Partners Project, 54 key informant interviews and 10 focus groups were conducted from 2015 to 2017. Additionally, more than 80 project-related documents were reviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to code the transcripts and identify prominent themes in the data. Examining clinic and community organisation partnerships in practice highlighted their inherent complexity. The partnerships were fluid and constantly evolving, shaped by a multiplicity of perspectives and values, and vulnerable to unpredictability. Care Partners sites negotiated the complexity of their partnerships drawing upon three main strategies: adaptation (allowing for flexibility and rapid change); integration (providing opportunities for multi-level partnerships within and across organisations) and cultivation (fostering a commitment to the partnership and its value). These strategies provided opportunities for Care Partners collaborators to work with the inherent complexity of partnering. Intentionally acknowledging and embracing such complexity rather than trying to reduce or avoid it, may allow clinic and community collaborators to strengthen and sustain their partnerships.