Search results

This chapter summarises the role of EU actions in supporting healthcare policies in the EU Member States, both looking at implemented actions and describing current priorities for the future. It argues that these coordinated actions can be beneficial for EU Member States by helping them to avoid duplication of effort and to attain economies of scale. Moreover, data sharing with proper safeguards can unleash vast amount of ‘learning what works’ both for medical treatments and for healthcare sustainability measures. The need for this common learning appears ever more urgent while facing the health and economic consequences of the present pandemic.

Ireland’s ageing population has resulted in an increasing number of older adults living with frailty. Despite growing attention towards older adults’ and health professionals’ perspectives of frailty, occupational therapy research is limited. This study aims to explore occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty and how their perceptions impact their approach to the assessment and management of frailty.

Using qualitative descriptive design, 19 occupational therapists working with older adults participated in online focus groups. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Perceptions of occupational therapists were constructed into three main themes: conceptualising frailty; management of frailty; and advancing frailty practice. Findings indicate that occupational therapists perceived frailty as a multidimensional concept but highlight a reluctance to use frailty terminology with patients. Findings also suggest that although occupational therapists are involved in provision of care for older adults living with frailty, the profession’s scope is not optimised in the assessment and management of frailty.

Findings provide insight into occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty. Development of a shared understanding of frailty between clinicians and patients and enhancement of undergraduate frailty education are recommended to progress occupational therapy’s role in frailty management.

The goal of this article is to provide an overview of healthcare entrepreneurship, both in terms of its current trends and future directions.

The article engages in a systematic review of extant research on healthcare entrepreneurship using the scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) as the review protocol and bibliometrics or scientometrics analysis as the review method.

Healthcare entrepreneurship research has fared reasonably well in terms of publication productivity and impact, with diverse contributions coming from authors, institutions and countries, as well as a range of monetary and non-monetary support from funders and journals. The (eight) major themes of healthcare entrepreneurship research revolve around innovation and leadership, disruption and technology, entrepreneurship models, education and empowerment, systems and services, orientations and opportunities, choices and freedom and policy and impact.

The article establishes healthcare entrepreneurship as a promising field of academic research and professional practice that leverages the power of entrepreneurship to advance the state of healthcare.

The article offers a seminal state of the art of healthcare entrepreneurship research.

Whilst nations have overall responsibility for policies to protect and serve their populations, in many countries, health policy and policies for children are delegated to regions or other local administrations, which make it a challenging subject to explore at a national level. We sought to establish which countries had specific strategies for child and adolescent health care, and whether primary care, social care and the school–healthcare interface was described and planned for, within any policies that exist. In addition, we established the extent to which a child health strategy and meaningful reference to children’s records and care delivery exist in an e-health context. Of concern in the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) context is that 40% of European Union and European Economic Area countries had reported no health strategy for children, and more than a half had no reference to supporting delivery of children’s health in their e-health strategy.

We investigated the differences in ownership and leadership of children’s policy, which was a range of ministry input (health, education, labour, welfare or ministries of youth and family); as well as cross-ministerial involvement. In terms of national policy planning and provider planning, we investigated the level of discussion, consultation and interaction between national healthcare bodies (including insurance bodies), providers and the public in policy implementation. The MOCHA project scrutinised the way countries aim to harness the latest technologies by means of e-health strategies, to support health services for children, and found that some had no explicit plans whereas a few were implementing significant innovation. Given that children are a key sector of the population, who by very nature have a need to rely on government and formally governed services for their well-being in the years when they cannot themselves seek or advocate for services, our findings are particularly worrying.

At the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the absence of pharmaceutical agents meant that policy institutions had to intervene by providing nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). To satisfy this need, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued policy guidelines, such as NPIs, and the government of Pakistan released its own policy document that included social distancing (SD) as a containment measure. This study explores the policy actors and their role in implementing SD as an NPI in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study adopted the constructs of Normalization Process Theory (NPT) to explore the implementation of SD as a complex and novel healthcare intervention under a qualitative study design. Data were collected through document analysis and interviews, and analysed under framework analysis protocols.

The intervention actors (IAs), including healthcare providers, district management agents, and staff from other departments, were active in implementation in the local context. It was observed that healthcare providers integrated SD into their professional lives through a higher level of collective action and reflexive monitoring. However, the results suggest that more coherence and cognitive participation are required for integration.

This novel research offers original and exclusive scenario narratives that satisfy the recent calls of the neo-implementation paradigm, and provides suggestions for managing the implementation impediments during the pandemic. The paper fills the implementation literature gap by exploring the normalisation process and designing a contextual framework for developing countries to implement guidelines for pandemics and healthcare crises.

This study aims to describe how person-centred care, as a concept, has been adopted into discourse in 23 European countries in relation to their healthcare systems (Beveridge, Bismarck, out of pocket).

A literature review inspired by the SPICE model, using both scientific studies (CINHAL, Medline, Scopus) and grey literature (Google), was conducted. A total of 1,194 documents from CINHAL (n = 139), Medline (n = 245), Scopus (n = 493) and Google (n = 317) were analysed for content and scope of person-centred care in each country. Countries were grouped based on healthcare systems.

Results from descriptive statistics (percentage, range) revealed that person-centred care was most common in the United Kingdom (n = 481, 40.3%), Sweden (n = 231, 19.3%), the Netherlands (n = 80, 6.7%), Northern Ireland (n = 79, 6.6%) and Norway (n = 61, 5.1%) compared with Poland (0.6%), Hungary (0.5%), Greece (0.4%), Latvia (0.4%) and Serbia (0%). Based on healthcare systems, seven out of ten countries with the Beveridge model used person-centred care backed by scientific literature (n = 999), as opposed to the Bismarck model, which was mostly supported by grey literature (n = 190).

Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse requires a systematic approach at the national (politicians), regional (guidelines) and local (specific healthcare settings) levels visualised by decision-making to establish a well-integrated phenomenon in Europe.

Evidence-based knowledge as well as national regulations regarding person-centred care are important tools to motivate the adoption of person-centred care in clinical practice. This could be expressed by decision-making at the macro (law, mission) level, which guides the meso (policies) and micro (routines) levels to adopt the scope and content of person-centred care in clinical practice. However, healthcare systems (Beveridge, Bismarck and out-of-pocket) have different structures and missions owing to ethical approaches. The quality of healthcare supported by evidence-based knowledge enables the establishment of a well-integrated phenomenon in European healthcare.

Our findings clarify those countries using the Beveridge healthcare model rank higher on accepting/adopting the concept of person-centered care in discourse. To adopt the concept of person-centred care in discourse requires a systematic approach at all levels in the organisation—from the national (politicians) and regional (guideline) to the local (specific healthcare settings) levels of healthcare.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the urgency of better chronic disease management and the importance of making it an integral part of the recovery agenda in Europe. This paper aims to explore the shift towards digital and integrated care systems in Europe.

In this viewpoint paper the Expert Group for Integrated Care and Digital Health Europe (EGIDE) group argues that an orchestrated shift towards integrated care holds the solution to the chronic disease pandemic.

The development of integrated care cannot happen without shifting towards a digitalised healthcare system via large-scale initiatives like the European Health Data Space (EHDS) and the involvement of all stakeholders.

The EGIDE group has identified some foundational principles, which can guide the way to realise the full potential of the EHDS for integrated care and can support the involved stakeholders’ thinking.

In order to assess the state of health of Europe’s children, or to appraise the systems and models of healthcare delivery, data about children are essential, with as much precision and accuracy as possible by small group characteristic. Unfortunately, the experience of the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project and its scientists shows that this ideal is seldom met, and thus the accuracy of appraisal or planning work is compromised. In the project, we explored the data collected on children by a number of databases used in Europe and globally, to find that although the four quinquennial age bands are common, it is impossible to represent children aged 0–17 years as a legally defined group in statistical analysis. Adolescents, in particular, are the most invisible age group despite this being a time of life when they are rapidly changing and facing increasing challenges. In terms of measurement and monitoring, there is little progress from work of nearly two decades ago that recommended an information system, and no focus on the creation of a policy and ethical framework to allow collaborative analysis of the rich anonymised databases that hold real-world people-based data. In respect of data systems and surveillance, nearly all systems in European society pay lip service to the importance of children, but do not accommodate them in a practical and statistical sense.

Equity is an issue that pervades all aspects of primary care provision for children and as such is a recurring theme in the Models of Child Health Appraised project. All European Union member states agree to address inequalities in health outcomes and include policies to address the gradient of health across society and target particularly vulnerable population groups. The project sought to understand the contribution of primary care services to reducing inequity in health outcomes for children. We focused on some key features of inequity as they affect children, such as the importance of good health services in early childhood, and the effects of inequity on children, such as the higher health needs of underprivileged groups, but their generally lower access to health services. This indicates that health services have an important role in buffering the effects of social determinants of health by providing effective treatment that can improve the health and quality of life for children with chronic disorders. We identified common risk factors for inequity, such as gender, family situation, socio-economic status (SES), migrant or minority status and regional differences in healthcare provision, and attempted to measure inequity of service provision. We did this by analysing routine data of universal primary care procedures, such as vaccination, age at diagnosis of autism or emergency hospital admission for conditions that can be generally treated in primary care, against variables of inequity, such as indicators of SES, migrant/ethnicity or urban/rural residency. In addition, we focused on the experiences of child population groups particularly at risk of inequity of primary care provision: migrant children and children in the state care system.

Attempts to transform health systems have in many countries involved starting to pay healthcare providers through a DRG system, but that has involved managerial workarounds. Managerial workarounds have seldom been analysed. This paper does so by extending and modifying existing knowledge of the causes and character of clinical and IT workarounds, to produce a conceptualisation of the managerial workaround. It further develops and revises this conceptualisation by comparing the practical management, at both provider and purchaser levels, of hospital DRG payment systems in England, Germany and Italy.

We make a qualitative test of our initial assumptions about the antecedents, character and consequences of managerial workarounds by comparing them with a systematic comparison of case studies of the DRG hospital payment systems in England, Germany and Italy. The data collection through key informant interviews (N = 154), analysis of policy documents (N = 111) and an action learning set, began in 2010–12, with additional data collection from key informants and administrative documents continuing in 2018–19 to supplement and update our findings.

Managers in all three countries developed very similar workarounds to contain healthcare costs to payers. To weaken DRG incentives to increase hospital activity, managers agreed to lower DRG payments for episodes of care above an agreed case-load ‘ceiling' and reduced payments by less than the full DRG amounts when activity fell below an agreed ‘floor' volume.

Empirically this study is limited to three OECD health systems, but since our findings come from both Bismarckian (social-insurance) and Beveridge (tax-financed) systems, they are likely to be more widely applicable. In many countries, DRGs coexist with non-DRG or pre-DRG systems, so these findings may also reflect a specific, perhaps transient, stage in DRG-system development. Probably there are also other kinds of managerial workaround, yet to be researched. Doing so would doubtlessly refine and nuance the conceptualisation of the ‘managerial workaround’ still further.

In the case of DRGs, the managerial workarounds were instances of ‘constructive deviance' which enabled payers to reduce the adverse financial consequences, for them, arising from DRG incentives. The understanding of apparent failures or part-failures to transform a health system can be made more nuanced, balanced and diagnostic by using the concept of the ‘managerial workaround'.

Managerial workarounds also appear outside the health sector, so the present analysis of managerial workarounds may also have application to understanding attempts to transform such sectors as education, social care and environmental protection.

So far as we are aware, no other study presents and tests the concept of a ‘managerial workaround'. Pervasive, non-trivial managerial workarounds may be symptoms of mismatched policy objectives, or that existing health system structures cannot realise current policy objectives; but the workarounds themselves may also contain solutions to these problems.