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

Designing a learning tool for translating resilience in healthcare into practice: A qualitative mixed methods study

There is currently a lack of tools that focus on strengthening resilient performance of healthcare systems through learning from positive healthcare events. Such tools are needed to operationalize and translate resilience in healthcare and, thus, advance the field of patient safety by learning from both positive and negative events and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to describe the developmental process of one such tool to enable operationalization of resilient healthcare and aid future tool development. The development process featured a complex, multi-step, design through involvement of a range of different stakeholders. A combination of publicly available platforms, cross-sectional knowledge, step-by step instructions and a learning tool that engages participants in collaborative practice to facilitate discussions across stakeholders and system levels is proposed as a means to create awareness of when and what contributes to resilient performance is fundamental to understanding and improving healthcare system resilience.

A Comprehensive Review of Prone Ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit: Challenges and Solutions

This comprehensive review explores the intricate landscape of prone ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU), spanning physiological rationale, challenges in implementation, psychosocial impacts, technological innovations, economic considerations, barriers to adoption, and implications for clinical practice. The physiological benefits of prone positioning, including improved oxygenation and lung compliance, are discussed alongside the challenges of patient selection and technical complexities. The psychosocial impact on patients and caregivers, as well as the economic implications for healthcare systems, adds a crucial dimension to the analysis. The review also delves into innovative technologies, such as advanced monitoring and automation, shaping the landscape of prone ventilation. Moreover, it addresses the barriers to widespread adoption and outlines strategies to overcome resistance, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and collaborative approach. The implications for clinical practice underscore the importance of evidence-based guidelines, ongoing education, and a holistic patient-centered care approach. The conclusion highlights the call to action for further research to refine protocols and technology, ultimately optimizing the application of prone ventilation in critical care settings.

Identifying, categorising, and mapping actors involved in resilience in healthcare: a qualitative stakeholder analysis

BACKGROUND

Resilience in healthcare is the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes to maintain high-quality care across system levels. While healthcare system stakeholders such as patients, informal carers, healthcare professionals and service managers have all come to be acknowledged as important co-creators of resilient healthcare, our knowledge and understanding of who, how, and in which contexts different stakeholders come to facilitate and support resilience is still lacking. This study addresses gaps in the research by conducting a stakeholder analysis to identify and categorise the stakeholders that are key to facilitating and sustaining resilience in healthcare, and to investigate stakeholder relationships relevant for the enactment of resilient healthcare systems.

METHODS

The stakeholder analysis was conducted using a sample of 19 empirical research projects. A narrative summary was written for 14 of the projects, based on publicly available material. In addition, 16 individual interviews were undertaken with researchers from the same sample of 19 projects. The 16 interview transcripts and 14 narratives made up the data material of the study. Application of stakeholder analysis methods was done in three steps: a) identification of stakeholders; b) differentiation and categorisation of stakeholders using an interest/influence grid; and c) investigation and mapping of stakeholder relationships using an actor-linkage matrix.

RESULTS

Identified stakeholders were Patients, Family Carers, Healthcare Professionals, Ward/Unit Managers, Service or Case Managers, Regulatory Investigators, Policy Makers, and Other Service Providers. All identified stakeholders were categorised as either 'Subjects', 'Players', or 'Context Setters' according to their level of interest in and influence on resilient healthcare. Stakeholder relationships were mapped according to the degree and type of contact between the various groups of stakeholders involved in facilitating resilient healthcare, ranging from 'Not linked' to 'Fully linked'.

CONCLUSION

Family carers and healthcare professionals were found to be the most active groups of stakeholders in the enactment of healthcare system resilience. Patients, managers, and policy makers also contribute to resilience to various degrees. Relationships between stakeholder groups are largely characterised by communication and coordination, in addition to formal collaborations where diverse actors work together to achieve common goals.

Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, there has been a growing international interest in user involvement in healthcare research. However, evidence on the management and impact of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to explore and delineate the current state, practice, and impact of patient and public involvement in healthcare research across different areas of healthcare and patient populations in the Nordic countries.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using nine scientific databases and gray literature from 1992-2023. Sources were categorized as empirical or non-empirical. We used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form 2 checklist for reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 56 publications were included, consisting of 39 empirical and 17 non-empirical sources. Gray literature varied among countries and institutions encompassing different types of documents. We found an increase in the number of publications on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. This was evidenced by the growing number of references and institutional initiatives intended at involving the public, indicating the increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. The terminology used to describe patient and public involvement varied over time. However, there has been a gradual narrowing down of terms as the concept of PPI has become more integrated into research practices, particularly with the involvement of funding agencies.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research has substantially increased, proliferated, and gained widespread acceptance across diverse healthcare domains. The variety of approaches challenged our scoping review in terms of systematic description and impact. Patient and public involvement was applied in one or more research stages using different methodologies and terms. International agreement on terms and definitions is needed for reliable interpretation of the use of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research.

Learning does not just happen: establishing learning principles for tools to translate resilience into practice, based on a participatory approach

BACKGROUND

Theories of learning are of clear importance to resilience in healthcare since the ability to successfully adapt and improve patient care is closely linked to the ability to understand what happens and why. Learning from both positive and negative events is crucial. While several tools and approaches for learning from adverse events have been developed, tools for learning from successful events are scarce. Theoretical anchoring, understanding of learning mechanisms, and establishing foundational principles for learning in resilience are pivotal strategies when designing interventions to develop or strengthen resilient performance. The resilient healthcare literature has called for resilience interventions, and new tools to translate resilience into practice have emerged but without necessarily stipulating foundational learning principles. Unless learning principles are anchored in the literature and based on research evidence, successful innovation in the field is unlikely to occur. The aim of this paper is to explore: What are key learning principles for developing learning tools to help translate resilience into practice?

METHODS

This paper reports on a two-phased mixed methods study which took place over a 3-year period. A range of data collection and development activities were conducted including a participatory approach which involved iterative workshops with multiple stakeholders in the Norwegian healthcare system.

RESULTS

In total, eight learning principles were generated which can be used to help develop learning tools to translate resilience into practice. The principles are grounded in stakeholder needs and experiences and in the literature. The principles are divided into three groups: collaborative, practical, and content elements.

CONCLUSIONS

The establishment of eight learning principles that aim to help develop tools to translate resilience into practice. In turn, this may support the adoption of collaborative learning approaches and the establishment of reflexive spaces which acknowledge system complexity across contexts. They demonstrate easy usability and relevance to practice.

What Do Patients and Their Carers Do to Support the Safety of Cancer Treatment and Care? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients and their carers face a multitude of challenges in the treatment journey; the full scope of how they are involved in promoting safety and supporting resilient healthcare is not known.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to undertake a scoping review to explore, document, and understand existing research, which explores what cancer patients and their carers do to support the safety of their treatment and care.

DESIGN

This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Five online databases were searched from 2000 to 2021 to identify primary literature exploring perspectives on patient and caregiver involvement in maintaining their safety during cancer care. Narrative synthesis was then conducted on the included literature.

RESULTS

Of the 1582 results generated from the initial search, 16 studies were included in the review. Most consisted of qualitative semistructured interviews with patients, as well as carers and healthcare professionals (HCP). Four narrative themes were identified: patient perception of safety and their involvement; patients take charge of their own care and well-being; safety as a dynamic collective responsibility; and carers are an undersupported asset. Patients and their carers involve themselves in a variety of behaviors in physical care, well-being, communication, and care coordination to ensure safety and support system resilience. This review adds a novel perspective on cancer patient and caregiver involvement in supporting resilient healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and their carers play an important role in promoting safe cancer care and healthcare system resilience. Further research is recommended to realize the full extent of the system gaps encountered and mediated by patients and their carers.

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.

Capacities for resilience in healthcare; a qualitative study across different healthcare contexts

Background

Despite an emerging consensus on the importance of resilience as a framework for understanding the healthcare system, the operationalization of resilience in healthcare has become an area of continuous discussion, and especially so when seeking operationalization across different healthcare contexts and healthcare levels. Different indicators for resilience in healthcare have been proposed by different researchers, where some indicators are coincident, some complementary, and some diverging. The overall aim of this article is to contribute to this discussion by synthesizing knowledge and experiences from studies in different healthcare contexts and levels to provide holistic understanding of capacities for resilience in healthcare.

Methods

This study is a part of the first exploratory phase of the Resilience in Healthcare programme. The exploratory phase has focused on screening, synthesising, and validating results from existing empirical projects covering a variety of healthcare settings. We selected the sample from several former and ongoing research projects across different contexts and levels, involving researchers from SHARE, the Centre for Resilience in Healthcare in Norway. From the included projects, 16 researchers participated in semi-structured interviews. The dataset was analysed in accordance with grounded theory.

Results

Ten different capacities for resilience in healthcare emerged from the dataset, presented here according to those with the most identified instances to those with the least: Structure, Learning, Alignment, Coordination, Leadership, Risk awareness, Involvement, Competence, Facilitators and Communication. All resilience capacities are interdependent, so effort should not be directed at achieving success according to improving just a single capacity but rather at being equally aware of the importance and interrelatedness of all the resilience in healthcare capacities.

Conclusions

A conceptual framework where the 10 different resilience capacities are presented in terms of contextualisation and collaboration was developed. The framework provides the understanding that all resilience capacities are associated with contextualization, or collaboration, or both, and thereby contributes to theorization and guidance for tailoring, making operationalization efforts for the identified resilience capacities in knowledge translation. This study therefore contributes with key insight for intervention development which is currently lacking in the literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07887-6.