Search results

COVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons.

A virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process.

We engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making.

A modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application.

Australia’s swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low number of cases. This response was underpinned by systematic knowledge mobilisation including support for targeted and prioritised health services research to fill knowledge gaps.

Setting priority processes can provide rich, engaged input to support government funding decisions about HSR. A wide range of dynamic and iterative processes influence decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation in the health system response to COVID-19. It is crucial to consider how major investment decisions will support a value-based healthcare system.

The purpose of this paper is to argue for an improved conceptualisation of health service research, using Stengers' (2018) metaphor of “slow science” as a critical yardstick.

The paper is structured in three parts. It first reviews the field of health services research and the approaches that dominate it. It then considers the healthcare research approaches whose principles and methodologies are more aligned with “slow science” before presenting a description of a “slow science” project in which the authors are currently engaged.

Current approaches to health service research struggle to offer adequate resources for resolving frontline complexity, principally because they set more store by knowledge generalisation, disciplinary continuity and integrity and the consolidation of expertise, than by engaging with frontline complexity on its terms, negotiating issues with frontline staff and patients on their terms and framing findings and solutions in ways that key in to the in situ dynamics and complexities that define health service delivery.

There is a need to engage in a paradigm shift that engages health services as co-researchers, prioritising practical change and local involvement over knowledge production. Economics is a research field where the products are of natural appeal to powerful health service managers. A “slow science” approach adopted by the embedded Economist Program with its emphasis on pre-implementation, knowledge mobilisation and parallel site capacity development sets out how research can be flexibly produced to improve health services.

Increased public awareness of clinical failure and rising levels of litigation are spurring health policy makers in industrialized countries to mandate that clinicians report and investigate clinical errors and near misses. This paper seeks to understand the value of root cause analysis (RCA) recommendations for practice improvement purposes. The paper presents an analysis of interviews with nine senior health managers who were asked about their views on RCA as practice improvement method.

Interview data were collected as part of a multi‐method evaluation consultancy project investigating a local Health Safety Improvement Program. The interview data were discourse analysed and arranged into over‐arching themes.

The analysis reveals rather negative views of the improvement potential of RCA: RCA is subject to too many constraints to be able to produce valuable recommendations; RCA recommendations: are perceived to be of “variable quality”; generate considerable extra work for senior management to do with vetting RCA recommendations; are experienced as contributing in only a limited way to organizational and practice improvement.

This study focuses on nine interviewees only and presents an analysis of single (not multiple) interviews. However, these nine interviewees fulfil crucial roles in implementing clinical practice improvement initiatives in their respective geographic areas.

The findings suggest that RCA requires much time and negotiation, and that the recommendations produced may not live up to the philosophy of clinical practice improvement's expectations. It may be necessary to reorient the expectations of the power of RCA, or accept that RCA produces communication about clinical processes that would otherwise not have taken place, and whose effects may not be registering for some time to come.

Besides drawing out the implications for RCA as investigative practice, the analysis argues that interviewees' responses harbour indications to suggest that these officials are finding themselves engaged in increasing levels of communicative and emotional labour, in having to manage and compensate for the ambiguities, incommensurabilities and conflicting goals inscribed into “post‐bureaucratic” initiatives such as RCA.

Patient safety has been addressed since 2002 in the health system of New South Wales, Australia via a Safety Improvement Programme (SIP), which took a system‐wide approach. The programme involved two‐day courses to educate healthcare professionals to monitor and report incidents and analyse adverse events by conducting root cause analysis (RCA). This paper aims to predict that all professions would favour SIP but that their work and educational histories would result in doctors holding the least and nurses the most positive attitudes. Alternative hypotheses were that doctors' relative power and other professions' team‐working skills would advantage the respective groups when conducting RCAs.

Responses to a 2005 follow‐up questionnaire survey of doctors (n=53), nurses (209) and allied health staff (59), who had participated in SIP courses, were analysed to compare: their attitudes toward the course; safety skills acquired and applied; perceived benefits of SIP and RCAs; and their experiences conducting RCAs.

Significant differences existed between professions' responses with nurses being the most and doctors the least affirming. Allied health responses resembled those of nurses more than those of doctors. The professions' experiences conducting RCAs (number conducted, leadership, barriers encountered, findings implemented) were similar.

Observational studies are needed to determine possible professional differences in the conduct of RCAs and any ensuing culture change that this may be eliciting.

There is strong professional support for SIPs but less endorsement from doctors, who tend not to prefer the knowledge content and multidisciplinary teaching environment considered optimal for safety improvement education. This is a dilemma that needs to be addressed.

Few longer‐term SIPs' assessments have been realised and the differences between professional groups have not been well quantified. As a result of this paper, benefits of and barriers to conducting RCAs are now more clearly understood.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of a health system‐wide safety improvement program (SIP) three to four years after initial implementation.

The study employs multi‐methods studies involving questionnaire surveys, focus groups, in‐depth interviews, observational work, ethnographic studies, documentary analysis and literature reviews with regard to the state of New South Wales, Australia, where 90,000 health professionals, under the auspices of the Health Department, provide healthcare to a seven‐million population. After enrolling many participants from various groups, the measurements included: numbers of staff trained and training quality; support for SIP; clinicians' reports of safety skills acquired, work practices changed and barriers to progress; RCAs undertaken; observation of functioning of teams; committees initiated and staff appointed to deal with adverse events; documentation and computer records of reports; and peak‐level responses to adverse events.

A cohort of 4 per cent of the state's health professionals has been trained and now applies safety skills and conducts RCAs. These and other senior professionals strongly support SIP, though many think further culture change is required if its benefits are to be more fully achieved and sustained. Improved information‐handling systems have been adopted. Systems for reporting adverse incidents and conducting RCAs have been instituted, which are co‐ordinated by NSW Health. When the appropriate structures, educational activities and systems are made available in the form of an SIP, measurable systems change might be introduced, as suggested by observations of the attitudes and behaviours of health practitioners and the increased reporting of, and action about, adverse events.

Few studies into health systems change employ wide‐ranging research methods and metrics. This study helps to fill this gap.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the deep conceptual underpinnings of trust and communication breakdowns via selected health inquiries into things that go wrong using evolutionary psychology.

This paper explains how this is carried out, and explores some of the adverse consequences for patient care. Evolutionary psychology provides a means of explaining important mental capacities and constructs including theory of mind and the social brain hypothesis. To have a theory of mind is to be able to read others' behaviours, linguistic and non‐verbal cues, and analyse their intentions. To have a social (or Machiavellian) brain means being able to assess, compete with and, where necessary, outwit others. In the tough and complex environment of the contemporary health setting, not too different from the Pleistocene, humans display a well‐developed theory of mind and social brains and, using mental attributes and behavioural repertoires evolved for the deep past in hunter‐gatherer bands, survive and thrive in difficult circumstances.

The paper finds that, while such behaviours cannot be justified, armed with an evolutionary approach one can predict survival mechanisms such as turf protection, competitive strategies, sending transgressors and whistleblowers to Coventry, self‐interest, and politics and tribal behaviours.

The paper shows that few studies examine contemporary health sector behaviours through an evolutionary psychology lens or via such deep accounts of human nature.

Stigma towards severe mental illness (SMI) is widespread, exacerbating mental health problems, and impacting on help-seeking and social inclusion. Anti-stigma campaigns are meeting with success, but results are mixed. Earlier intervention to promote positive mental health literacy rather than challenge stigma, may show promise, but little is known about stigma development or interventions in younger children. The purpose of this paper is to investigate children’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviour towards SMI and whether we can positively influence children’s attitudes before stigma develops.

A cross-sectional study investigated mental health schema in 7-11 year olds. An experimental intervention investigated whether an indirect contact story-based intervention in 7-8 year olds led to more positive mental health schema.

Young children’s schema were initially positive, and influenced by knowledge and contact with mental illness and intergroup anxiety, but were more stigmatising in older girls as intergroup anxiety increased. The indirect contact intervention was effective in promoting positive mental health schema, partially mediated by knowledge.

Intervening early to shape concepts of mental illness more positively, as they develop in young children, may represent a more effective strategy than attempting to challenge and change mental health stigma once it has formed in adolescents and adults.

This study is the first to investigate an intervention targeted at the prevention of stigma towards SMI, in young children, at the point that stigma is emerging.