Search results

The paper defines the concept of inequity in health care and reviews the various approaches to identify causal relationships which lead to inequitable health outcomes. Notably, the input and process of health care delivery, the medical and social need factors, the external environment and the indirect influences channeled through ‘mediating’ factors. It further proposes a comprehensive model which integrates the combined effects of the several categories of components involved in determining inequitable outcomes between groups and individuals. While not exhaustive, the model provides a systematic attempt to define and trace inequities in health and potential causes of such, in operational terms. It can be used, therefore, for practical measurement of levels of inequity in outcomes.

The goal of this contribution is to shed light on the benefits for research in health care coming from the use of administrative data, especially in terms of measuring hospitals’ outcomes. The main approaches to health outcome evaluation are reviewed and the possible improvements deriving from the use of administrative data are highlighted. Administrative data may be an essential element in the process of gathering to the public true rankings of health care organizations, reducing the degree of asymmetric information that typically arises in health care. Patients will be more aware of the best institutions, which will induce most of them to demand to be admitted in them, taking into account the costs associated with distance and with the severity of the illness. This in turn may ask for a reorganization of the sector, closing some organizations and expanding others, having as final goal to improve the health status of the population, without income barriers. This is one of the first attempts to provide an overview of the advantages that administrative data may gather in health care.

The purpose of this paper is to understand value cocreation in service ecosystems from a multilevel perspective, uncovering value cocreation factors and outcomes at the micro, meso, and macro levels.

A Grounded Theory approach based on semi-structured interviews is adopted. The sample design was defined to enable the ecosystem analysis at its different levels. At the macro level was the Portuguese Health Information ecosystem. Embedded meso level units of analysis comprised eight health care organizations. A total of 48 interviews with citizens and health care practitioners were conducted at the micro level.

Study results enable a detailed understanding of the nature and dynamics of value cocreation in service ecosystems from a multilevel perspective. First, value cocreation factors are identified (resource access, resource sharing, resource recombination, resource monitoring, and governance/institutions generation). These factors enable actors to integrate resources in multiple dynamic interactions to cocreate value outcomes, which involve both population well-being and ecosystem viability. Study results show that these value cocreation factors and outcomes differ across levels, but they are also embedded and interdependent.

The findings have important implications for organizations that are ecosystem actors (like the Portuguese Ministry of Health) for understanding synergies among value cocreation factors and outcomes at the different levels. This provides orientations to better integrate different actor roles, technology, and information while facilitating ecosystem coordination and co-evolution.

This study responds to the need for a multilevel understanding of value cocreation in service ecosystems. It also illuminates how keystone players in the ecosystem should manage their value propositions to promote resource integration for each actor, fostering resource density and ecosystem viability. It also bridges the high-level conceptual perspective of Service-Dominant logic with specific empirical findings in the very important context of health care.

Value-based health care (VBHC) argues that health-care needs to re-focus to maximise value creation, defining value as the quota when dividing the outcomes important for the patient, by the cost for health care to deliver such outcomes. This study aims to explore the perception of value among different stakeholders involved in the process of implementing VBHC at a Swedish hospital to support leaders to be more efficient and effective when developing health care.

Participants comprised 19 clinicians and non-clinicians involved in the implementation of VBHC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and content analysis was performed.

The clinicians described value as a dynamic concept, dependent on the patient and the clinical setting, stating that improving outcomes was more important than containing costs. The value for non-clinicians appeared more driven by the interplay between the outcome and the cost. Non-clinicians related VBHC to a strategic framework for governance or for monitoring different continuous improvement processes, while clinicians appreciated VBHC, as they perceived its introduction as an opportunity to focus more on outcomes for patients and less on cost containment.

There is variation in how clinicians and non-clinicians perceive the key concept of value when implementing VBHC. Clinicians focus on increasing treatment efficacy and improving medical outcomes but have a limited focus on cost and what patients consider most valuable. If the concept of value is defined primarily by clinicians’ own assumptions, there is a clear risk that the foundational premise of VBHC, to understand what outcomes patients value in their specific situation in relation to the cost to produce such outcome, will fail. Health-care leaders need to ensure that patients and the non-clinicians’ perception of value, is integrated with the clinical perception, if VBHC is to deliver on its promise.

In the US, a growing number of organizations and industries are seeking to affirm their commitment to and efforts around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as recent events have increased attention to social inequities. As health care organizations are considering new ways to incorporate DEI initiatives within their workforce, the anticipated result of these efforts is a reduction in health inequities that have plagued our country for centuries. Unfortunately, there are few frameworks to guide these efforts because few successfully link organizational DEI initiatives with health equity outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is to review existing scholarship and evidence using an organizational lens to examine how health care organizations can advance DEI initiatives in the pursuit of reducing or eliminating health inequities. First, this chapter defines important terms of DEI and health equity in health care. Next, we describe the methods for our narrative review. We propose a model for understanding health care organizational activity and its impact on health inequities based in organizational learning that includes four interrelated parts: intention, action, outcomes, and learning. We summarize the existing scholarship in each of these areas and provide recommendations for enhancing future research. Across the body of knowledge in these areas, disciplinary and other silos may be the biggest barrier to knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. Moving forward, scholars and practitioners should seek to collaborate further in their respective efforts to achieve health equity by creating formalized initiatives with linkages between practice and research communities.

This study aims to analyze the value-based health-care model in defining a strategy to guide the evolution of health-care organizations toward a value-oriented model. To improve the quality of care by ensuring economic sustainability, it is necessary to redefine the concept of competition in healthcare and align it with the concept of maximizing value for patients.

Performance measurement is a crucial aspect of the analysis of health-care organizations. Porter developed an effective analytical technique and presented the measurement of health-care outcomes based on health conditions, the efficiency of health-care organizations and the type of service provided.

Clinical outcomes and data on the costs of care of each patient are essential to evaluate improvement in treatment value over time. Engaging in the evaluation of what happens to patients in their course of care enables the expansion of the measurement of outcomes because it measures all the health services related to it.

Building a health-care system based on the value and continuous improvement of care and services provided is a goal shared by many countries and international organizations. Today, the analysis of outcomes is important for making informed decisions, directing and planning clinical and organizational changes by improving the quality of care and services.

Service transformation of health and social care is currently requiring commissioners to assess the suitability of their contracting mechanisms to ensure goodness of fit with the integration agenda. The purpose of this paper is to provide a description and critical account of four models of contracting, namely Accountable Care Organisations, the Alliance Model, the Lead Provider/Prime Contractor Model, and Outcomes-based Commissioning and Contracting.

The approach taken to the literature review was narrative and the results were organised under an analytical framework consisting of six themes: definition and purpose; characteristics; application; benefits/success factors; use of incentives; and critique.

The review highlighted that while the models have relevance, there are a number of uncertainties regarding their direct applicability and utility for the health and social care agenda, and limited evidence of effectiveness.

Due to the relative newness of the models and their emerging application, much of the commentary was limited to a narrow range of contributors and a broader discussion is needed. It is clear that further research is required to determine the most effective approach for integrated care contracting. It is suggested that instead of looking at individual models and assessing their transferable worth, there may be a place for examining principles that underpin the models to reshape current contracting processes.

What appears to be happening in practice is an organic development. With the growing number of examples emerging in health and social care, these may act as “trailblazers” and support further development.

There is emerging debate surrounding the best way to contract for health and social care services, but no literature review to date that takes these current models and examines their value in such critical detail. Given the pursuit for “answers” by commissioners, this review will raise awareness and provide knowledge for decision making.

This paper aims to share the findings of a realist evaluation study that set out to identify how to strengthen nursing, midwifery and allied health professions (NMAHP) leadership across all health-care contexts in the UK conducted between 2018 and 2019. The collaborative research team were from the Universities of Bangor, Ulster, the University of the West of Scotland and Canterbury Christ Church University.

Realist evaluation and appreciative inquiry were used across three phases of the study. Phase 1 analysed the literature to generate tentative programme theories about what works, tested out in Phase 2 through a national social media Twitter chat and sense-making workshops to help refine the theories in Phase 3. Cross-cutting themes were synthesised into a leadership framework identifying the strategies that work for practitioners in a range of settings and professions based on the context, mechanism and output configuration of realist evaluation. Stakeholders contributed to the ongoing interrogation, analysis and synthesis of project outcomes.

Five guiding lights of leadership, a metaphor for principles, were generated that enable and strengthen leadership across a range of contexts. – “The Light Between Us as interactions in our relationships”, “Seeing People’s Inner Light”, “Kindling the Spark of light and keeping it glowing”, “Lighting up the known and the yet to be known” and “Constellations of connected stars”.

This study has illuminated the a-theoretical nature of the relationships between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes in the existing leadership literature. There is more scope to develop the tentative programme theories developed in this study with NMAHP leaders in a variety of different contexts. The outcomes of leadership research mostly focussed on staff outcomes and intermediate outcomes that are then linked to ultimate outcomes in both staff and patients (supplemental). More consideration needs to be given to the impact of leadership on patients, carers and their families.

The study has developed additional important resources to enable NMAHP leaders to demonstrate their leadership impact in a range of contexts through the leadership impact self-assessment framework which can be used for 360 feedback in the workplace using the appreciative assessment and reflection tool.

Whilst policymakers note the increasing importance of leadership in facilitating the culture change needed to support health and care systems to adopt sustainable change at pace, there is still a prevailing focus on traditional approaches to individual leadership development as opposed to collective leadership across teams, services and systems. If this paper fails to understand how to transform leadership policy and education, then it will be impossible to support the workforce to adapt and flex to the increasingly complex contexts they are working in. This will serve to undermine system integration for health and social care if the capacity and capability for transformation are not attended to. Whilst there are ambitious global plans (WHO, 2015) to enable integrated services to be driven by citizen needs, there is still a considerable void in understanding how to authentically engage with people to ensure the transformation is driven by their needs as opposed to what the authors think they need. There is, therefore, a need for systems leaders with the full skillset required to enable integrated services across place-based systems, particularly clinicians who are able to break down barriers and silo working across boundaries through the credibility, leadership and facilitation expertise they provide.

The realist evaluation with additional synthesis from key stakeholders has provided new knowledge about the principles of effective NMAHP leadership in health and social care, presented in such a way that facilitates the use of the five guiding lights to inform further practice, education, research and policy development.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between organizational safety climate and organizational health performance outcomes (i.e. absenteeism, presenteeism, health care utilization) mediated by individual worker health. The authors used three pathways to examine this relationship: a physical pathway starting with physical safety climate and mediated by musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), a psychosocial pathway starting with psychosocial safety climate and mediated by emotional exhaustion, and a combined pathway starting with psychosocial safety climate and mediated by both MSDs and emotional exhaustion.

Three mediational multilevel analyses were conducted using a sample of 8,761 employees working in 177 health care organizations.

Although the findings did not support the hypothesized physical pathway, they showed that the psychosocial pathway worked satisfactorily for two of the three health performance outcomes (absenteeism and presenteeism). The combined physical and psychosocial pathway explained differences in the third outcome: health care utilization.

This is one of the few studies to include both physical and psychosocial pathways that lead to employee health and organizational performance. The results underscore the importance of paying attention to psychological health and safety in the health care workplace. Not only for the psychological health of employees, but also to improve their physical health and subsequent organizational health performance.

Hospitals within the United States consistently have injury rates that are over twice the national employee injury rate. Hospital safety studies typically investigate care providers rather than support service employees. Compounding the lack of evidence for this understudied population is the scant evidence that is available to examine the relationship of support service employees’ perceptions of safety and work-related injuries. To examine this phenomenon, the purpose of this study was to investigate support service employees’ perceptions of safety leadership and social support as well as the relationship of safety perception to levels of reported injuries.

A nonexperimental survey was conducted with the data collected from hospital support service employees (n=1,272) and examined: (1) relationships between safety leadership (supervisor and organization) and individual and unit safety perceptions; (2) the moderating effect of social support (supervisor and coworker) on individual and unit safety perceptions; and (3) the relationship of safety perception to reported injury rates. The survey items in this study were based on the items from the AHRQ Patient Safety Culture Survey and the U.S. National Health Care Surveys.

Safety leadership (supervisor and organization) was found to be positively related to individual safety perceptions and unit safety grade as was supervisor and coworker support. Coworker support was found to positively moderate the following relationships: supervisor safety leadership and safety perceptions, supervisor safety leadership and unit safety grade, and senior management safety leadership and safety perceptions. Positive employee safety perceptions were found to have a significant relationship with lower reported injury rates.

These findings suggest that safety leadership from supervisors and senior management as well as coworker support has positive implications for support service employees’ perceptions of safety, which, in turn, are negatively related to lower odds of reporting injuries.