Did healthcare professional perspectives on the quality and safety environment in New Zealand public hospitals change from 2012 to 2017?

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

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

An integrative systematic review of employee silence and voice in healthcare: what are we really measuring?

The history of inquiries into the failings of medical care have highlighted the critical role of communication and information sharing, meaning that speaking up and employee silence have been extensively researched. However, the accumulated evidence concerning speaking-up interventions in healthcare indicates that they achieve disappointing outcomes because of a professional and organizational culture which is not supportive. Therefore, there is a gap with regard to our understanding of employee voice and silence in healthcare, and the relationship between withholding information and healthcare outcomes (e.g., patient safety, quality of care, worker wellbeing) is complex and differentiated. The following integrative review is aimed at addressing the following questions; (1) How is voice and silence conceptualized and measured in healthcare?; and (2) What is the theoretical background to employee voice and silence?. An integrative systematic literature review of quantitative studies measuring either employee voice or employee silence among healthcare staff published in peer-reviewed journals during 2016-2022 was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar. A narrative synthesis was performed. A review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO register (CRD42022367138). Of the 209 initially identified studies for full-text screening, 76 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the final review (N = 122,009, 69.3% female). The results of the review indicated the following: (1) concepts and measures are heterogenous, (2) there is no unifying theoretical background, and (3) there is a need for further research regarding the distinction between what drives safety voice versus general employee voice, and how both voice and silence can operate in parallel in healthcare. Limitations discussed include high reliance on self-reported data from cross-sectional studies as well as the majority of participants being nurses and female staff. Overall, the reviewed research does not provide sufficient evidence on the links between theory, research and implications for practice, thus limiting how research in the field can better inform practical implications for the healthcare sector. Ultimately, the review highlights a clear need to improve assessment approaches for voice and silence in healthcare, although the best approach to do so cannot yet be established.

Clinical governance in New Zealand: perceptions from registered health professionals in health care delivery compared with social insurance

ObjectiveEffective clinical governance can improve delivery of health outcomes. This exploratory study compared perceptions of clinical governance development held by registered health professionals employed by two different but interrelated health organisations in the broader New Zealand (NZ) health system. Most staff in public sector healthcare service delivery organisations (i.e. District Health Boards (DHBs)) are registered health professionals, whereas these clinical staff represent a small minority (5%) in social insurance organisations (i.e. the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)). Given these different contexts, comparison of results from three surveys of clinical governance perceptions identified key learnings for the development of clinical governance.MethodsThe Clinical Governance Development Index (CGDI) was administered to registered health professional staff in NZ DHBs and ACC, at different time points. The data were explored, compared and reported.ResultsResponses to survey items completed by NZ DHB staff and registered health professionals employed by ACC were compared. For each administration, there was a similar profile of positive responses across the seven CGDI items. The 2020 ACC survey results for one item were clearly different. This item asked about perceptions of full and active involvement in organisational processes and decision making (i.e. clinical engagement).ConclusionsPerceptions of registered health professionals working in the NZ public sector delivering health services were compared with those held by staff employed by a NZ social insurer predominantly commissioning and influencing care. The results indicated similar levels of clinical governance development. Clinical governance development in the ACC context can benefit from clear communication, building strong supporting structures and greater management-clinical provider partnerships. Clinical governance development drives health outcomes and regular measurement of developmental progress can provide momentum. There is room across the NZ health system to raise awareness and leverage clinical governance to deliver improved health outcomes.What is known about the topic?Little is known about the perceptions held by registered health professionals employed by social insurance organisations. There are no published comparative studies exploring differences in perceptions between registered health professionals across two different organisational contexts, both with a goal of improving health outcomes.What does this paper add?Effective clinical governance drives coordinated, quality systems that promote optimal health outcomes. Social insurance organisations predominantly commission healthcare providers to deliver health outcomes. Although registered health professionals employed by social insurance organisations represent a small total number of staff, their perspective on clinical governance, as reported via survey, indicated there is most to be gained in the development of partnerships between management and clinical providers. This exploratory study fills a gap in the existing clinical governance development literature and evidence base.What are the implications for practitioners?Any health organisation can leverage clinical governance to deliver improved health outcomes. Effective clinical governance interventions are targeted to specific organisational context and culture. For ACC, a clear definition, enhanced management-clinical provider partnerships and strong supporting structures or organisational arrangements can be further developed. The survey results indicated that a focus on management-clinical provider partnerships is a clear priority for ACC clinical governance development. Partnerships based in empowered collaboration require greater clinical engagement, as well as increased capability for aligning with organisational priorities. Effective clinical governance development requires attention to context and culture. It can improve delivery of health outcomes.