Search results

This paper aims to explore right wing populist government responses to the coronavirus pandemic.

This paper is a narrative overview of right-wing populist policies and strategies, which is loosely structured around fascistic themes set out in Albert Camus’ allegorical novel, The Plague.

Although individual responses to the coronavirus pandemic among right-wing populists differ, they appear to coalesce around four central themes: initial denial and then mismanagement of the pandemic; the disease being framed as primarily an economic rather than a public health crisis; a contempt for scientific and professional expertise; and the “othering” of marginal groups for political ends. Populist responses to the pandemic have given rise to increased levels of xenophobia, the violation of human rights and the denigration of scientific expertise.

This is a narrative overview from a personal viewpoint.

Drawing on themes in Camus' novel The Plague, this is a personal perspective on right wing populist government responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Populist responses to the pandemic have given rise to increased levels of intolerance and xenophobia and the violation of human rights and civil liberties.

This study aims to explore how leadership, management practices and organisational cultures have changed in low and high-performing mental health (MH) providers between 2015 and 2020 in the English National Health Service.

The authors used a qualitative case study design comprising a purposeful sample of two low-performing and two high-performing MH providers, based on semi-structured interviews with 60 key informants (mostly internal to the organisation with some external informants from local Clinical Commissioning Groups).

The authors found major differences regarding leadership, management and organisational culture between low and high performing MH providers in 2015/2016, and that the differences had diminished considerably by 2019/20. In 2015/16, low performing providers were characterised by a “top-down” style of leadership, centralised decision-making and “blame cultures”. In contrast, the high performing providers were characterised as having more distributed, collaborative and inclusive styles of leadership/management, with open and supportive cultures. As the low performing providers changed and adapted their styles of leadership and management and organisational culture over the five-year period, they more closely resembled those of the high performing trusts.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore the relationship between changing organisational factors and the performance of MH care providers. It provides evidence that it is possible for radical changes in leadership, management and organisational culture to be enacted over a relatively short period of time and that such changes may help low performing providers to turnaround their underperformance.

The study aimed to understand the significance of how employee personhood and the act of speaking up is shaped by factors such as employees' professional status, length of employment within their hospital sites, age, gender and their ongoing exposure to unprofessional behaviours.

Responses to a survey by 4,851 staff across seven sites within a hospital network in Australia were analysed to interrogate whether speaking up by hospital employees is influenced by employees' symbolic capital and situated subjecthood (SS). The authors utilised a Bourdieusian lens to interrogate the relationship between the symbolic capital afforded to employees as a function of their professional, personal and psycho-social resources and their self-reported capacity to speak up.

The findings indicate that employee speaking up behaviours appear to be influenced profoundly by whether they feel empowered or disempowered by ongoing and pre-existing personal and interpersonal factors such as their functional roles, work-based peer and supervisory support and ongoing exposure to discriminatory behaviours.

The findings from this interdisciplinary study provide empirical insights around why culture change interventions within healthcare organisations may be successful in certain contexts for certain staff groups and fail within others.

This study aims to compare and contrast the core organisational processes across high and low performing mental health providers in the English National Health Service (NHS).

A multiple case study qualitative design incorporating a full sample of low and high performing mental health providers.

This study suggests that the organisational approaches used to govern and manage mental health providers are associated with their performance, and the study’s findings give clues as to what areas might need attention. They include, but are not limited to: developing appropriate governance frameworks and organisational cultures, ensuring that staff across the organisation feel “psychologically safe” and able to speak up when they see things that are going wrong; a focus on enhancing quality of services rather than prioritising cost-reduction; investing in new technology and digital applications; and nurturing positive inter-organisational relationships across the local health economy.

Highlights considerable divergence in organisation and management practices that are associated with the performance of mental health trusts in the English NHS

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether official inquiries are an effective method for holding the medical profession to account for failings in the quality and safety of care.

Through a review of the theoretical literature on professions and documentary analysis of key public inquiry documents and reports in the UK National Health Service (NHS) the authors examine how the misconduct of doctors can be understood using the metaphor of professional wrongdoing as a product of bad apples, bad barrels or bad cellars.

The wrongdoing literature tends to present an uncritical assumption of increasing sophistication in analysis, as the focus moves from bad apples (individuals) to bad barrels (organisations) and more latterly to bad cellars (the wider system). This evolution in thinking about wrongdoing is also visible in public inquiries, as analysis and recommendations increasingly tend to emphasise cultural and systematic issues. Yet, while organisational and systemic factors are undoubtedly important, there is a need to keep in sight the role of individuals, for two key reasons. First, there is growing evidence that a small number of doctors may be disproportionately responsible for large numbers of complaints and concerns. Second, there is a risk that the role of individual professionals in drawing attention to wrongdoing is being neglected.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge this is the first theoretical and empirical study specifically exploring the role of NHS inquiries in holding the medical profession to account for failings in professional practice.

Previous research has demonstrated that social-relational factors are instrumental to employee voice. An essential aspect of this relates to notions of respect or disrespect. Although nurses commonly report experiencing professional disrespect in their interaction with doctors, earlier studies have focused on how the professional status hierarchy and power imbalance between doctors and nurses hinder speaking up without considering the role of professional disrespect. Addressing this gap, we explore how professional disrespect in the doctor–nurse relationship in surgical teams influences the willingness of nurses to voice legitimate concerns about threats to patient safety.

Fifty-seven semi-structured interviews with nurses drawn from a range of specialities, ranks and surgical teams in three hospitals in a West African Country. In addition, two interviews with senior representatives from the National Registered Nurses and Midwifery Association (NRNMA) of the country were undertaken and analysed thematically with the aid of NVivo.

Disrespect is expressed in doctors’ condescending attitude towards nurses and under-valuing their contribution to care. This leads to safety concerns raised by nurses being ignored, downplayed or dismissed, with deleterious consequences for patient safety. Feeling disrespected further motivates nurses to consciously disguise silence amidst speech and engage in punitive silence aimed at making clinical practice difficult for doctors.

We draw attention to the detrimental effect of professional disrespect on patient safety in surgical environments. We contribute to employee voice and silence by showing how professional disrespect affects voice independently of hierarchy and conceptualise the notion of punitive silence.

Healthcare systems are under pressure to improve their performance, while at the same time facing severe resource constraints, particularly workforce shortages. By applying resource-dependency-theory (RDT), we explore how healthcare organizations in different settings perceive pressure arising from uncertain access to resources and examine organizational strategies they deploy to secure resources.

A cross-sectional survey of key decision-makers in different healthcare settings in the metropolitan area of Cologne, Germany, on perceptions of pressure arising from the environment and respective strategies was conducted. For comparisons between settings radar charts, Kruskal–Wallis test and Fisher–Yates test were applied. Additionally, correlation analyses were conducted.

A sample of n = 237(13%) key informants participated and reported high pressure caused by bureaucracy, time constraints and recruiting qualified staff. Hospitals, inpatient and outpatient nursing care organizations felt most pressurized. As suggested by RDT, organizations in highly pressurized settings deployed the most vociferous strategies to secure resources, particularly in relation to personnel development.

This study is one of the few studies that focuses on the environment's impact on healthcare organizations across a variety of settings. RDT is a helpful theoretical foundation for understanding the environment's impact on organizational strategies. The substantial variations found between healthcare settings indicate that those settings potentially require specific strategies when seeking to address scarce resources and high demands. The results draw attention to the high level of pressure on healthcare organizations which presumably is passed down to managers, healthcare professionals, patients and relatives.

The National Health Service (NHS) is facing unprecedented financial strain. These significant economic pressures have coincided with concerns regarding the quality and safety of the NHS provider sector. To make the necessary improvements to performance, policy interest has turned to encouraging greater collaboration and partnership working across providers.

Using a purposive search of academic and grey literature, this narrative review aimed (1) to establish a working typology of partnering arrangements for improvement across NHS providers and (2) inform the development of a plausible initial rough theory (IRF) of partnering to inform an ongoing realist synthesis.

Different types of partnership were characterised by degree of integration and/or organisational change. A review of existing theories of partnering also identified a suitable framework which incorporated key elements to partnerships, such as governance, workforce, leadership and culture. This informed the creation of an IRF of partnerships, which proposes that partnership “interventions” are proposed to primarily cause changes in governance, leadership, IT systems and care model design, which will then go on to affect culture, user engagement and workforce.

Further realist evaluation, informed by this review, will aim to uncover configurations of mechanisms, contexts and outcomes in various partnering arrangements and limitations. As this is the starting point for building a programme theory, it draws on limited evidence.

This paper presents a novel theory of partnering and collaborating in healthcare with practical implications for policy makers and practitioners.

Neo-liberal “reform” has in many countries shifted services across the boundary between the public and private sector. This policy re-opens the question of what structural and managerial differences, if any, differences of ownership make to healthcare providers. The purpose of this paper is to examine the connections between ownership, organisational structure and managerial regime within an elaboration of Donabedian’s reasoning about organisational structures. Using new data from England, it considers: how do the internal managerial regimes of differently owned healthcare providers differ, or not? In what respects did any such differences arise from differences in ownership or for other reasons?

An observational systematic qualitative comparison of differently owned providers was the strongest feasible research design. The authors systematically compared a maximum variety (by ownership) sample of community health services; out-of-hours primary care; and hospital planned orthopaedics and ophthalmology providers (n=12 cases). The framework of comparison was the ownership theory mentioned above.

The connection between ownership (on the one hand) and organisation structures and managerial regimes (on the other) differed at different organisational levels. Top-level governance structures diverged by organisational ownership and objectives among the case-study organisations. All the case-study organisations irrespective of ownership had hierarchical, bureaucratic structures and managerial regimes for coordinating everyday service production, but to differing extents. In doctor-owned organisations, the doctors’, but not other occupations’, work was controlled and coordinated in a more-or-less democratic, self-governing ways.

This study was empirically limited to just one sector in one country, although within that sector the case-study organisations were typical of their kinds. It focussed on formal structures, omitting to varying extents other technologies of power and the differences in care processes and patient experiences within differently owned organisations.

Type of ownership does appear, overall, to make a difference to at least some important aspects of an organisation’s governance structures and managerial regime. For the broader field of health organisational research, these findings highlight the importance of the owners’ agency in explaining organisational change. The findings also call into question the practice of copying managerial techniques (and “fads”) across the public–private boundary.

Ownership does make important differences to healthcare providers’ top-level governance structures and accountabilities and to work coordination activity, but with different patterns at different organisational levels. These findings have implications for understanding the legitimacy, governance and accountability of healthcare organisations, the distribution and use power within them, and system-wide policy interventions, for instance to improve care coordination and for the correspondingly required foci of healthcare organisational research.

The purpose of this paper is to review existing research on whistleblowing in healthcare in order to develop an evidence base for policy and research.

A narrative review, based on systematic literature protocols developed within the management field.

The authors identify valuable insights on the factors that influence healthcare whistleblowing, and how organizations respond, but also substantial gaps in the coverage of the literature, which is overly focused on nursing, has been largely carried out in the UK and Australia, and concentrates on the earlier stages of the whistleblowing process.

The review identifies gaps in the literature on whistleblowing in healthcare, but also draws attention to an unhelpful lack of connection with the much larger mainstream literature on whistleblowing.

Despite the limitations to the existing literature important implications for practice can be identified, including enhancing employees’ sense of security and providing ethics training.

This paper provides a platform for future research on whistleblowing in healthcare, at a time when policymakers are increasingly aware of its role in ensuring patient safety and care quality.