Hospital managers' perspectives with implementing quality improvement measures and a new regulatory framework: a qualitative case study

Exploring the influence of health system factors on adaptive capacity in diverse hospital teams in Norway: a multiple case study approach

OBJECTIVES

Understanding flexibility and adaptive capacities in complex healthcare systems is a cornerstone of resilient healthcare. Health systems provide structures in the form of standards, rules and regulation to healthcare providers in defined settings such as hospitals. There is little knowledge of how hospital teams are affected by the rules and regulations imposed by multiple governmental bodies, and how health system factors influence adaptive capacity in hospital teams. The aim of this study is to explore the extent to which health system factors enable or constrain adaptive capacity in hospital teams.

DESIGN

A qualitative multiple case study using observation and semistructured interviews was conducted between November 2020 and June 2021. Data were analysed through qualitative content analysis with a combined inductive and deductive approach.

SETTING

Two hospitals situated in the same health region in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Members from 8 different hospital teams were observed during their workday (115 hours) and were subsequently interviewed about their work (n=30). The teams were categorised as structural, hybrid, coordinating and responsive teams.

RESULTS

Two main health system factors were found to enable adaptive capacity in the teams: (1) organisation according to regulatory requirements to ensure adaptive capacity, and (2) negotiation of various resources provided by the governing authorities to ensure adaptive capacity. Our results show that aligning to local context of these health system factors affected the team's adaptive capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Health system factors should create conditions for careful and safe care to emerge and provide conditions that allow for teams to develop both their professional expertise and systems and guidelines that are robust yet sufficiently flexible to fit their everyday work context.

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.

Managing patient safety and staff safety in nursing homes: exploring how leaders of nursing homes negotiate their dual responsibilities-a case study

Objective

Within healthcare, the role of leader is becoming more complex, and healthcare leaders carry an increasing responsibility for the performance of employees, the experience and safety of patients and the quality of care provision. This study aimed to explore how leaders of nursing homes manage the dual responsibility of both Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) and Quality and Patient Safety (QPS), focusing particularly on the approaches leaders take and the dilemmas they face. In addition, we wanted to examine how leaders experience and manage the challenges of HSE and QPS in a holistic way.

Design/setting

The study was designed as a case study. Data were collected through semi structured individual interviews with leaders of nursing homes in five Norwegian municipalities.

Participants

13 leaders of nursing homes in urban and rural municipalities participated in this study.

Results

Data analysis resulted in four themes explaining how leaders of nursing homes manage the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS, and the approaches they take and the dilemmas they face: 1.Establishing good systems and building a culture for a work environment that promotes health and patient safety.2.Establish channels for internal and external collaboration and communication.3.Establish room for maneuver to exercise leadership.4.Recognizing and having the mandate to handle possible tensions in the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS.

Conclusions

The study showed that leaders of nursing homes who are responsible for ensuring quality and safety for both patients and staff, experience tensions in handling this dual responsibility. They acknowledged the importance of having time to be present as a leader, to have robust systems to maintain HSE and QPS, and that conflicting aspects of legislation are an everyday challenge.

Team experiences of the root cause analysis process after a sentinel event: a qualitative case study

BACKGROUND

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a systematic approach, typically involving several stages, used in healthcare to identify the underlying causes of a medical error or sentinel event. This study focuses on how members of a Norwegian RCA team experience aspects of an RCA process and whether it complies with the Norwegian RCA method.

METHOD

Based on a sentinel event in which a child died unexpectedly during childbirth in a Norwegian hospital in 2021, the following research questions are addressed: 1. What was the RCA team's experience of the RCA process? 2. Was there compliance with the Norwegian RCA method in this case? A case study was chosen out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena and to allow in-depth focus on a case.

RESULTS

The result covered three main themes. The first theme related to the hospital's management system and aspects of the case that made it challenging to follow all recommendations in the Norwegian RCA guidelines. The second theme encompassed external and internal assessment. The RCA team was composed of members with methodological and medical expertise. However, the police's involvement in the case made it complex for the team to carry out the process. The third and final theme covered intrapersonal challenges RCA team members faced. Team members experienced various challenges during the RCA process, including being neutral, dealing with role-related challenges, grappling with ambivalence, and managing the additional time burden and resource constraints. As anticipated in the RCA guidelines, the team's ability to remain neutral was tested.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study can help stakeholders better comprehend how an inter-professional RCA teamwork intervention can affect a healthcare organization and enhance the teamwork experience of healthcare staff while facilitating improvements in work processes and patient safety. Additionally, these results can guide stakeholders in creating, executing, utilizing, and educating others about RCA processes.

Learning from experience: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives on reporting and dealing with serious adverse events

INTRODUCTION

In surgery, serious adverse events have effects on the patient journey, the patient outcome and may constitute a burden to the surgeon involved. This study aims to investigate facilitators and barriers to transparency around, reporting of and learning from serious adverse events among surgeons.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative study design, we recruited 15 surgeons (4 females and 11 males) with 4 different surgical subspecialties from four Norwegian university hospitals. The participants underwent individual semistructured interviews and data were analysed according to principles of inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We identified four overarching themes. All surgeons reported having experienced serious adverse events, describing these as part of 'the nature of surgery'. Most surgeons reported that established strategies failed to combine facilitation of learning with taking care of the involved surgeons. Transparency about serious adverse events was by some felt as an extra burden, fearing that openness on technical-related errors could affect their future career negatively. Positive implications of transparency were linked with factors such as minimising the surgeon's feeling of personal burden with positive impact on individual and collective learning. A lack of facilitation of individual and structural transparency factors could entail 'collateral damage'. Our participants suggested that both the younger generation of surgeons in general, and the increasing number of women in surgical professions, might contribute to 'maturing' the culture of transparency.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that transparency associated with serious adverse events is hampered by concerns at both personal and professional levels among surgeons. These results emphasise the importance of improved systemic learning and the need for structural changes; it is crucial to increase the focus on education and training curriculums and offer advice on coping strategies and establish arenas for safe discussions after serious adverse events.

Association between hospital legal constructions and medical disputes: A multi-center analysis of 130 tertiary hospitals in Hunan Province, China

Background

Medical disputes are common in hospitals and a major challenge for the operations of medical institutions. However, few studies have looked into the association between medical disputes and hospital legal constructions. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between hospital legal constructions and medical disputes, and it also aimed to develop a nomogram to estimate the likelihood of medical disputes.

Methods

Between July and September 2021, 2,716 administrators from 130 hospitals were enrolled for analysis. The study collected seventeen variables for examination. To establish a nomogram, administrators were randomly split into a training group (n = 1,358) and a validation group (n = 1,358) with a 50:50 ratio. The nomogram was developed using data from participants in the training group, and it was validated in the validation group. The nomogram contained significant variables that were linked to medical disputes and were identified by multivariate analysis. The nomogram's predictive performance was assessed utilizing discriminative and calibrating ability. A web calculator was developed to be conducive to model utility.

Results

Medical disputes were observed in 41.53% (1,128/2,716) of participants. Five characteristics, including male gender, higher professional ranks, longer length of service, worse understanding of the hospital charters, and worse construction status of hospital rule of law, were significantly associated with more medical disputes based on the multivariate analysis. As a result, these variables were included in the nomogram development. The AUROC was 0.67 [95% confident interval (CI): 0.64-0.70] in the training group and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) in the validation group. The corresponding calibration slopes were 1.00 and 1.05, respectively, and intercepts were 0.00 and -0.06, respectively. Three risk groups were created among the participants: Those in the high-risk group experienced medical disputes 2.83 times more frequently than those in the low-risk group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Medical dispute is prevailing among hospital administrators, and it can be reduced by the effective constructions of hospital rule of law. This study proposes a novel nomogram to estimate the likelihood of medical disputes specifically among administrators in tertiary hospitals, and a web calculator can be available at https://ymgarden.shinyapps.io/Predictionofmedicaldisputes/.

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.

Acting between guidelines and reality- an interview study exploring the strategies of first line managers in patient safety work

BACKGROUND

Safety culture can be described and understood through its manifestations in the organization as artefacts, espoused values and basic underlying assumptions and is strongly related to leadership-yet it remains elusive as a concept. Even if the literature points to leadership as an important factor for creating and sustaining a mature safety culture, little is known about how the safety work of first line managers' is done and how they balance the different and often conflicting organizational goals in everyday practice. The purpose of this study was to explore how health care first line managers perceive their role and how they promote patient safety and patient safety culture in their units.

METHODS

Interview study with first line managers in intensive care units in eight different hospitals located in the middle of Sweden. An inductive qualitative content analysis approach was used, this was then followed by a deductive analysis of the strategies informed by constructs from High reliability organizations.

RESULTS

We present how first line managers view their role in patient safety and exemplify concrete strategies by which managers promote patient safety in everyday work.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows the central role of front-line managers in organizing for safe care and creating a culture for patient safety. Although promoted widely in Swedish healthcare at the time for the interviews, the HSOPSC was not mentioned by the managers as a central source of information on the unit's safety culture.